Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

BBC Parliamentary Coverage

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Denis MacShane: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to conduct this first Adjournment debate of the summer on the important issue of the BBC and its parliamentary coverage. The House has debated the subject several times in the past year; the debates have been good-humoured and reasonable. The House has left behind some hon. Members' old habits of Beeb-bashing, which was a good blood sport in the old days, but I believe that we all want to work together to ensure that the BBC fulfils its mandate and fully discharges its obligation, set out in its charter, to provide an adequate report of parliamentary proceedings.
We are conscious that it is not just the House that is in play; soon we shall have a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament, and there is a proposal for a Main Committee. The BBC will have to have regard to all the debates that take place in our different national forums, but I still maintain, as a strong supporter of the Government's constitutional programme, that what happens in this principal House, representing all the United Kingdom, remains paramount.
This morning, the BBC is holding a seminar on how to pay for itself—the usual chinwag between distinguished journalists. I received a nice note from the chairman of the governors, apologising for his absence from today's debate. The two Front-Bench spokespersons, my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), are present. I look forward to hearing what they have to say, but I hope that they will speak as Members of the House rather than as representatives of Government and Opposition.
What is the main concern that brings us to this morning's debate? It is, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, that to lose one, or perhaps 1,000, listeners may be regarded as a misfortune, but to lose 3 million is unacceptable carelessness. That is what the BBC has done: it has lost 3 million listeners for parliamentary coverage.
I quote the BBC's figures, distributed in a document to some MPs before the Easter recess. Last year, "Yesterday in Parliament" had 3.13 million listeners; now it has 830,000. When "The Week in Westminster" was broadcast on Saturdays, it had 658,000 listeners. Now, in its graveyard slot of Thursday evening, it has 227,000 listeners. Taken together, that is a loss of 3 million listeners for parliamentary coverage on Radio 4.
Last year, when the subject was debated, we were solemnly told—in letters from the chairman and statements made by Mr. James Boyle on the radio and elsewhere—that people were bored with "Yesterday in Parliament", that they were not interested in parliamentary proceedings and that "Today" would gain plenty of new listeners between 8.30 and 9 o'clock as a result of taking Members of Parliament off the air. We now find that there has not been a single new listener to "Today". That is what we predicted. We now have proof. Today I ask the BBC to reverse last year's disastrous decision.
To be fair to the BBC, it has admitted that it got things wrong. In a letter that I received from the chairman, dated 9 April, he says:
the BBC should be, and I believe is, big enough to put things right when mistakes have been made.
Two things are clear. The loss of listeners to 'Yesterday in Parliament' and 'The Week in Westminster' is much greater than we had expected—and that, whatever the causes of that loss, there is an unacceptable 'democratic deficit' which the BBC, with its special public service responsibilities, needs to address. The BBC must give appropriate prominence to coverage of parliamentary proceedings.
I welcome, as all of us do in our Lord's mansion, a sinner who is prepared to convert, and I hope that the chairman will put his words into practice. He also says:
The Today
programme
figures, while steady, have not improved as a result of moving Yesterday in Parliament.
We also have an interesting statement from Mr. Tony Hall, head of BBC news, made at a Fabian seminar held in the House, now published by the Fabian Society—which, as a member of its executive committee, I advise all hon. Members to join. He says:
we are all told—almost daily it seems—we live in a rapidly changing world. Some say audiences are no longer interested in politics. Our research for our Programme Strategy Review showed something very different. People still expect, and want, the BBC to provide full coverage of difficult subjects. 65% said it was important that the BBC reported what was happening in Parliament.
I invite Mr. Tony Hall, as it were, to put his editorial decisions as chief executive of BBC news where his mouth was and restore "Yesterday in Parliament" to the "Today" programme as it is listened to by the majority of listeners in this country, and put "The Week in Westminster" back on Saturday morning.
The BBC will argue, as it has argued in the document that it circulated to some Members of Parliament, that it has extended parliamentary coverage, via the Parliamentary channel, the internet, the Sunday night programme "The Westminster Hour", and "Westminster Live" in the afternoons, but none of those programmes, good as they are, can replace a linked journalistic narrative of what is said in this place, broadcast on FM.
Tony Hall refers to
a time and place where people can…listen".
It is no use shunting us into a slot late on Sunday night, or into an obscure corner of the digital network; what people need is a report of Parliament on their daily morning newspaper of the air, the "Today" programme. Radio 5 does an excellent job, but it does not report parliamentary proceedings. It will rush off to the Ministry of Defence for a press conference, but to my knowledge it has never presented a proper report of what happens here.
The "time and place where people can listen" is not on long wave. In a document sent to us before the recess, the BBC admits that one British person in five has no access to it. Last year, in correspondence, Sir Christopher Bland said that he was willing to come to my house to retune my radio at 8.30 am. Although that was an extraordinarily generous offer—my children asked whether this would take place before or after their Weetopops!—I did not want to burden Sir Christopher with such raw contact with a Member of Parliament and his family.
Driving up to Rotherham and wanting to hear a report of the important debate on Kosovo that we had just before the recess, I tried to retune my radio from FM to long wave, but it was impossible. There I was on the Ml, being hounded by Eddie Stobart's and other lorries—lorries to left of me, lorries to right of me. Hon. Members know what the M1 is like in the mornings: lorry drivers rush to burn up their diesel fuel as fast as they can. Jabbing at my radio set trying to find long wave, I nearly caused a pile-up. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Whip, who is sitting on the Front Bench, thinks that a by-election in Rotherham would be a good or a bad thing; perhaps we can talk about that afterwards.
The situation is preposterous. As Mr. Hall says, our parliamentary proceedings should be broadcast at a time and place where people can listen. The purpose of this debate, however, is not just to make that fundamental demand, or simply to moan about the BBC; it is to defend the central role of parliamentary democracy.
It is currently fashionable to deride Parliament. I heard a woman journalist on Radio 4's "Any Questions" last Friday. I cannot remember her name, but in terms of flatulent, self-important pomposity she could knock any of us into a cocked hat. According to her, Parliament was not important, MPs were not important and nothing that happened in Parliament counted. Parliament has been written out of the national agenda. That, of course, is true for the fashionable intelligentsia—and some hon. Members play a political game by trying to present Parliament as the weak poodle of the Executive, although those of us who try desperately to stay on message but are always six months late know just how wrong they are. That is true even when we write, whatever language we happen to write in.
Parliament is central to democracy in this country. How we all wish that there had been one parliamentary debate for one hour in Belgrade to discuss the tragedy in that area. Parliament does hold the Executive to account. Of course it is not as exciting as it was earlier in the decade when there was no majority and Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer were losing their jobs, but that is not the fault of Parliament or the Government. We must blame the British people, who in their wisdom decided to send a massive majority to the House of Commons two years ago.
In fact, since January there have been 35 ministerial statements in the House, and eight private notice questions. The Prime Minister has made four statements, and the Foreign Secretary seven. On nearly every day of the parliamentary week so far this year, a Minister—often the Prime Minister—has come to the House to justify, explain and account for his or her actions. Yesterday we engaged in an excellent exchange on Kosovo, and I

understand that we shall have a full debate on it next week. However, none of those debates, statements, questions and probes has been heard in the mornings on our "national newspaper of the air".
Parliament is also the testing ground for the Executive of the future. Let us not rubbish it too much. In 20 or 30 years, when Opposition Members have their chance of regaining power, today's young men and women, some of whom are sitting on the Opposition Benches now—they will, of course, be a little greyer then—will be called on to become the nation's Executive, partly on the basis of the way in which they have performed here. We are not the United States: we do not take academics, bankers or journalists and put them in the Cabinet. It is from this place, for good or ill, that those who make the big decisions—such as how 40 per cent. of our gross domestic product is used—are chosen.

Mr. David Winnick: Should not newspaper editors and owners—as well as the BBC—bear in mind another factor, in addition to the issues that my hon. Friend has rightly raised? Without this place, whatever blemishes and faults it has displayed over the centuries, the civil liberties of all our people—including those whom I have mentioned—would not last five minutes.

Mr. MacShane: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for all of us.
Parliament has another important aspect: it reflects the kaleidoscope of what we are as a people. Many Back Benchers, some of whom are present on both sides of the Chamber—I shall not lessen their reputations by naming them—make a significant contribution. They are the ones who

"Dare to be a Daniel,
Dare to stand alone,
Dare to have a purpose firm,
And dare to make it known."

As is well known, I am a team player—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which team?"]—but we need strong, independent Back-Bench voices. [Laughter.]

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's passionate job application, but I want to pick up a serious point that he has made. I have been listening carefully, and I agree with much of what he is saying.
In trying to persuade the BBC to return "Yesterday in Parliament" to its rightful place, should we not bear it in mind that the BBC's charter requires it to cover Parliament properly? That is what makes the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, entirely different from other broadcasting organisations. It is not allowed simply to chase ratings—and in any event, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it has failed in its desperate attempt to do so.

Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Parliament means more than just the Chamber, however. As a junior parliamentary private secretary at the Foreign Office, I can reveal a secret: the Select Committee system causes no little interest among Ministers. The Foreign Secretary has appeared more often


before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to answer questions than any of his predecessors. There is also the other place, where an interesting debate took place last night—reactionary and wrong, but interesting none the less. That too has been wiped off the airwaves.
Radio is important. There is a parliamentary television channel. I am going out live somewhere; it is possible to, as it were, chop me up, and it is difficult to make such an event come to life on television. This is a place for speaking. We are not really visual objects: we are losing our hair and gaining in girth. We are not pretty enough to appear on television, even those of us who have been treated with hormones or genetically modified. However, on radio we manage to tell a story, because radio is the medium of speech.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that originally "The Week in Westminster" was dedicated to the role of Back-Bench Members of Parliament, but that it has unfortunately changed, and now often carries what Front Benchers say?

Mr. MacShane: As a Back Bencher I find that deplorable, but I would be happy to take an intervention on the subject from the Front Bench.
We boast about having the best broadcasting system in the world. That may have been true once, but I wonder whether it is any longer. I watch political programmes in a number of other countries, and I often see a more mature, richer debate. The shop-worn Punch and Judy style of Messrs Paxman and Humphrys may be a barrier to understanding the new complexities of the modern world.
Unbelievably, we run a significant balance of trade deficit in broadcast programmes. This great nation of broadcasters imports far more than it exports. We do not have enough radio stations in the United Kingdom. We have 251. France has 858, Spain has 1,405, even the tiny Netherlands has 481, and Italy, where people obviously love talking, has more than 2,000. Three times as many people are employed in the radio business in Germany as in the UK, and twice as many in Italy. I want more broadcasting, more discussion of politics and more jobs to be created.
The row about parliamentary broadcasting, which has been rumbling for more than a year, masks a deeper malaise in the direction and management of the BBC. It is losing audiences, and many are asking whether it has lost its way. The licence fee is harder and harder to justify, certainly to many poor pensioners and the poorer members of my constituency.
The BBC was the first great nationalised industry in the long 20th-century British history of the belief that Government and Whitehall knew best what people wanted and what they should be given. As the BBC looks to the 21st century, I wonder whether it needs to reconsider its financing and institutional organisation.

Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend is being slightly unkind to the BBC. The major reason for the BBC's loss of audiences is the rapidly changing technological world, which is changing the nature of broadcasting. That makes possible a Parliamentary channel, and means that we will get digital

terrestrial television, satellite and cable. In the near future we will get digital radio, which will allow for debates in this place to be broadcast live on a continuous basis.

Mr. MacShane: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but he is arguing for quantity, whereas I am arguing for quality. My point was that the linked narration of "Yesterday in Parliament" makes the programme come to life, instead of its being a Hansard of television or radio that anyone can tune or plug into at any time of the day.
In conclusion, I appeal to the governors. They are responsible for the present position. It is clear that the BBC executives have shifted responsibility for this area to the governors. They do not usually intervene directly in programme making or editorial decisions, which is right. The executive of the BBC has let down the governors. It told the governors, and Sir Christopher came and told us, that removing Parliament from the airwaves on the FM "Today" programme would promote Radio 4, and that no one would notice the difference. They were wrong. Even Polly Toynbee, for example, who supported that decision before it was made, has written that she misses "Yesterday in Parliament." The executives were wrong 3 million times—the 3 million British citizens whom James Boyle, the Radio 4 controller, deprived of access to their own Parliament.
It is immensely hard for the British establishment to admit that it has got things wrong. It is harder still to put back in place what was successful. The BBC should be big enough to admit that it got something wrong, and to restore what worked and what serves the people of this country.

Mr. David Davis: I begin by declaring an interest, as the author of the "BBC Guide to Parliament." I should tell the House that any change in its circulation in recent years has nothing to do with what I shall argue today.
As is conventional, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his good fortune in getting the debate. He knows that my congratulations are more heartfelt than usual. I shall try to be as non-partisan in my comments as he was; I agree with 95 per cent. of what he said. I shall pick up the issue of the licence fee, with which he ended.
We all accept the ramifications of the licence fee. It may surprise some of my colleagues that as a relatively right-wing, free-market Tory Member of Parliament, I am entirely in favour of the licence fee, precisely because of its public service implications. It requires the BBC to inform, educate and entertain, in that order of priority—a point rarely made by the BBC.
That requirement has increased, not decreased, in importance with the proliferation of channels. We must remember that when there is greater pressure on the BBC to defend its market share. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) alluded to that in his intervention. Audience share reduction is inevitable, whatever the BBC does. It must recognise that fact and understand that that is not an excuse to abandon its core values.
I ask the Minister to pass on my congratulations to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who recently, in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon),


my predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, stated his support for Alan Yentob's comment that quality comes before the mindless pursuit of audience. That matters in the present context, as elsewhere.
It is no bad thing that there is a dynamic tension between the wish to hang on to audience share and those core values. It prevents a subsidised monopoly organisation such as the BBC from making the Arts Council error of funding with taxpayers' money or, in this case, public service money, the very obscure—piles of bricks or preserved sheep—and invoking the public interest argument. Sensibly applied, dynamic tension prevents such a loss of common sense.
That dynamic tension also drives the BBC to try to square the circle by making good the popular and making the popular good. Over the years, the BBC has been extremely good at that. I come to my view of the BBC partly because, like the hon. Member for Rotherham, I have lived in another country. I have experienced the American television system and its lack of quality. I have seen the effect of the BBC not being present to drive standards up, as it has done in much of its coverage.
The idea of making the good popular and making the popular good demands from the BBC a creative response, rather than a managerial one, to its circulation problems. The error that we have witnessed over the past year results from a managerial response, rather than a creative response, to the problem of improving audience figures for the BBC.

Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend is speaking about managerial responses and excuses, will he comment on the fact that some of us who take an interest in BBC general and parliamentary broadcasting have been told that if "Yesterday in Parliament" is moved back to long wave, the programme will be shorter and fewer Back Benchers will be covered? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a specious excuse and managerial response is nonsense, because if no one is hearing the programme anyway on long wave, it hardly matters how many Back Benchers are mentioned?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. I shall return to the point at the end of my remarks. Many of the options proposed by the BBC in its so-called repentance—hardly a Damascene repentance—are facile and need imagination to improve them. The best way to meet the public service requirement and maintain audience levels is through a creative approach, not just a managerial one.
All public service requirements are important, but support for our democracy is pre-eminent, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said earlier.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to say that the BBC is interested only in its ratings. If the BBC was not interested in broadcasting this place, it would not have taken over the bankrupt Parliamentary channel and made it into a BBC channel. That has cost the BBC a lot of licence payers' money without any return, because it is not putting advertising on the channel. The BBC has also created one of the best websites on the

internet—again free of charge and without advertising—with a lot of parliamentary coverage, which again it would not have done if it was interested only in ratings.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have said. The BBC has maintained its core values in many respects, but it has not done so in this case. I shall come back to the Parliamentary channel later. It provides the BBC with an easy excuse. The ghettoisation of parliamentary coverage on the Parliamentary channel is not the answer. The channel has a role, which I shall elaborate shortly.

Ms Gisela Stuart: I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to my correspondence with Sir Christopher Bland about the reporting on "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The programme on the Wednesday evening was informative, but "Yesterday in Parliament" on the Thursday morning was almost a parody of "Week Ending", focusing on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's mispronouncing of words. When I drew Sir Christopher's attention to the fact that his responsibility as a public service broadcaster was not to entertain but to inform, he did not take my point. The issue is not just the time given to reporting of Parliament, but maintaining quality, which is where the BBC has lost its way.

Mr. Davis: I accept what the hon. Lady says, which leads me to the issue of the dumbing down of the treatment of politics, which the BBC is sensitive about. I wrote the book that I mentioned at the start of my speech because of the televising of Parliament. I was concerned that one of its effects might be to dumb down the treatment of Parliament. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Rotherham that the Chamber is not a particularly televisual place, although I do not associate myself with his comments about the looks and telegenicity of his colleagues.
Television is inevitably a more superficial medium than radio. The attention span of somebody watching television is often much shorter than that of somebody listening to a radio programme. It would be unreasonable to expect producers not to reflect that in the design of their programmes. They are designing for their customers. That is what created the soundbite society. It was not the fault of venal producers or people whose aim was to corrupt our political process; it was a response to the pressures of a broadcast system.
That has affected the behaviour of Members of Parliament. One reason for some of the corruption of quality of contributions in this place is the fact that time spent crafting a soundbite will have more effect on public opinion than the same amount of time spent crafting the sort of logical argument that the House has historically been famous for.
That problem is reinforced by competition. In the age of the zapper, people can switch in a moment between many channels. That drives producers and makes them more prone to go for soundbites that will keep the attention of the audience. That tendency is further reinforced by all the other media available to audiences, including video tapes, computer games and the internet.


With volatile audiences, programmers are tempted, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, to focus on entertainment at the expense of information. That is a serious problem that has also infected radio.
However, that background makes radio even more important than it was before. It is our most accessible medium—our most democratic medium, if one likes. It is right that our most democratic medium should support our democracy. It is the most thoughtful medium. It is right that the most thoughtful medium should disseminate the argument, debate and logical exchanges that one hopes for from this House.
Radio 4 is the most vital component. It is the broadsheet broadcaster—the equivalent of The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent. It is the most important channel for opinion forming. To continue the comparison with broadsheets, the FM broadcasts at drive times—the "Today" programme, "The World at One" and "PM"—are the front page. The reporting of our democracy should be on the front page of the broadsheets. Moving "Yesterday in Parliament" from FM to long wave is equivalent to taking it off the front page and putting it in a pull-out supplement, making it an optional extra.

Mr. Keith Simpson: A throwaway supplement.

Mr. Davis: A throwaway supplement, as my hon. Friend suggests. An informed democracy is not an optional extra; it is a vital part of British society. The BBC's public service commitment should recognise that.
We take an informed democracy for granted in this country. It is not taken for granted in every country. Even now, people are fighting about the absence of democracy, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said. It is no coincidence that "Today in Parliament" was first broadcast spontaneously by the BBC with no pressure from Parliament in 1945 at the end of a war to defend democracy. We must not allow the priority given to democracy to slip away. The changes that the BBC has made to "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" are symptoms of complacency about the importance of democracy.
The changes also show a weak grasp of statistics. The 73 per cent. reduction in coverage for "Yesterday in Parliament" and the 65 per cent. reduction for "The Week in Westminster" were predictable. Labour Members predicted such outcomes and pointed out that the amount of parliamentary coverage in the 8 am to 9 am slot was increasing. The reduction was being caused by lifestyle changes. The same pattern was evident in August and on Mondays, when there was no parliamentary coverage.

Mr. Chris Mullin: We should be fair. Although, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the reduction was predictable, the scale of it is stunning. Nobody predicted a reduction on such a scale. In any other organisation heads would roll in similar circumstances. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any heads will roll in this case, or does he think that those responsible will be promoted?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of an eminent Select Committee and is much better at

scalp-hunting than I am. I shall not comment on whether heads will roll, but he is right to point out that the reduction has been dramatic. It is a serious affront to our democratic tradition in this country. The BBC should be worried about that.
We must assume that the BBC managers are intelligent people. They misinterpreted the statistics because they perceived politics as boring. That is an ignorant view. Anyone who sits in the House knows that this place can be the best theatre in the world. We are privileged to have free, front-rank seats in it.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Open all hours.

Mr. Davis: Unfortunately it is open all hours, and sometimes that shows.

Mr. MacShane: What about the quality of the comedy?

Mr. Davis: We have already heard a comedy turn this morning. I hope that the Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), noted the quality of the comedy, if not of the team playing. On an extracted basis, "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" could be exciting programmes. In many ways, the BBC did not make the most of them. It did not build its programming around them as it could have done; programming could have been built around "Today". The BBC should perhaps think about that creative response, rather than the simple jigsaw playing with the schedules that we have seen so far.
Politics is not so much boring as unfashionable, but democracy is not a designer accessory. It cannot be thrown aside because coverage of Parliament is unfashionable one year and fashionable the next.
What do I suggest in response? I reflect the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins): the options that have been offered are limited. The comments that accompany the options are often in defiance of the facts; they are extraordinary. The minimum that should happen, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said, is a return to the status quo ante—before the switch to long wave: a simple recognition of the mistake that cost those enormous reductions in programme coverage.
The optimum is a recognition that, if the BBC can experiment in one direction to reduce coverage, it can experiment in the other to increase coverage. One of the arguments made to me by BBC management has been, "We have a much better programme on long wave." In that case, bring the whole programme back to FM: have a 20-minute programme and see whether that improves coverage, which might be the deduction from the statistics before the switch occurred.
Keep the extra 10 minutes and bring the programme back to FM. Perhaps the BBC should try to build up the programme that precedes it and put a little more around it to reflect what is reported there. Of course, I also agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham that the BBC should put "The Week in Westminster" back in its original slot.
I respond to the comments by the hon. Member for Cathcart about the Parliamentary channel. There is one area where the BBC, by its own criteria, although not necessarily by mine, could be said to have succeeded: the


replacement of "In Committee" with "The Westminster Hour." That at least has given more volume, although it is an apples and oranges comparison.
There has been great temptation on the part of BBC management to say, "We have the Parliamentary channel. We spent £20 million of public money"—not the BBC's money—"on that." I applaud that, but the Parliamentary channel, the website and the internet site appeal to a small set of political junkies, to put it bluntly—those who are so enthusiastic about politics that they will get the Hansard if it comes down to it. Democracy is not about the few; it is about the many, if I may parody a new Labour slogan. That is not a demonstration of my movement to new Labour. I say to the Whip: I am not such a team player.
If one is not careful, one ghettoises politics, but perhaps it is appropriate that "In Committee", which is of specialist interest, should go through those media, rather than through the Radio 4 medium. Perhaps that was a sensible change. I did not think so at the time, but I at least recognise it now.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even though we all welcome the BBC's purchase of the Parliamentary channel, that is in no way a substitute for bringing back "Yesterday in Parliament" to Radio 4 on FM? Many people need, in drive time, to hear what is being said, or what was said the day before, in this place. It is something that they can listen to on their way to work, during the most influential programme, when they are not able to be at home to watch the Parliamentary channel. Radio is a different medium because people hear it in their cars on their way to work, when thinking about the nation's affairs.

Mr. Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend. I cited the example of "In Committee" as a possible route to specialised delivery, but generally speaking, channel proliferation creates more, rather than less, demand for proper Radio 4 coverage. Indeed, as was pointed out in the debate in the other place on public service broadcasting standards, although one might have expected the digital revolution to deliver many new facts and data for people to make democratic judgments, it has not. It has generated a torrent of opinion, whirlpools of spin, which obscure, rather than reveal, the information that the public should have. That serves both the public and Parliament badly.
I move on from the narrow question of the specific parliamentary channels to the reporting of Parliament in the other news media and news programmes. The same problem applies with general news coverage. My primary example is "The World at One", the duration of which was cut. The aim of the cut was simply to increase audience figures—nothing else. It was not even audience figures for "The World at One"; it was audience figures for the drama programmes later in the day.
A core value of the BBC was sacrificed—the delivery of high-quality news coverage at a key point in the political and news day, namely, lunchtime—in pursuit of audience figures for later on. Indeed, it was theoretical because, again, the policy was proved wrong; it did not work.
Ten minutes may not sound much, but once the news headlines and the other structural parts of the programme have been knocked out, 10 minutes are more than a third

of the time for discussion. As a result, an important institution that the BBC has created has been seriously damaged.
I return to my key point. The highest priority in public service broadcasting and in the public service remit is to support an informed democracy; that is paramount. The arguments that we have heard from the BBC are arguments of choice and market. That is not what I want from public service broadcasting. The whole point about the core values is that they should provide what the market does not provide. If the BBC does not do that—I say it as a right-wing, free market Conservative; I am part of the continuity Conservative party—and if it goes down the market route, it will take great risks with its claim for a monopoly grant from the public at large.
The BBC has to make a big strategic choice. Does it want to live up to the standards of its charter? Does it want to do what it should to support our democracy, or does it want to chase audiences? If it wants to do the former, it will always have my backing for its licence fee and for the support that is given to it. If it wants to do the latter, it will lose that support and become just another large broadcasting corporation.

Mr. David Winnick: I say straight away that I am a fan of the BBC. It does a very good job. I do not want it to be privatised. As we know, when crises occur abroad, it is to the BBC World Service that many people rightly turn, so it is not a question of BBC baiting—if it were, I would not wish to be involved in such an exercise. However, I am critical, and have been from the beginning, of the reduced coverage of Parliament as a result of the changes.
I remember reading in the one of the Sunday newspapers, before there was any official notification of the change, that people did not want to listen to "Yesterday in Parliament" and were switching off in droves. I immediately recognised that the spin doctors were at work. I recognise the work of spin doctors, including the BBC's. Therefore, it did not come as a surprise when the official announcement was made about the intention to switch "Yesterday in Parliament" to long wave.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) referred to the vast reduction in the number of people listening to "Yesterday in Parliament". However, when the BBC spin doctors first told us that people were switching off in large numbers, I took the opportunity to find out the listening figures for the substitute items that went out when Parliament was in recess. If people were switching off in large numbers because they were bored by BBC reporting of Parliament, one would expect more people to listen to the substitute items. Surprise, surprise, almost exactly the same number of people listened to the substitute programmes—so much for BBC propaganda.
It has come as no surprise—certainly to me—that the "Today" programme has attracted no more listeners. As was revealed in previous discussions on the subject, the "Today" programme, like other radio programmes, inevitably loses listeners from eight o'clock onwards. There are a variety of reasons for that, the most obvious being that people go to work.
The document that has been circulated by the BBC states that the reduction in the audience of "Yesterday in Parliament" of 73 per cent.
is broadly in line with the BBC's assessment in 1997.
I remember a meeting between the chairman of the BBC, the controller of Radio 4 and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. We were told that as a result of "Yesterday in Parliament" moving to long wave, there would inevitably be a reduction in listeners. That was not challenged, but there was no indication that the BBC was working on the assumption that the reduction would be anything like as vast as 73 per cent. So I do not accept for a moment what is written in the document and I doubt whether any hon. Member who has taken an interest in the subject is likely to do so.
I have met a number of people who no longer listen to "Yesterday in Parliament". As many of them are driving at the time, they are unlikely to start switching channels, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. Of course they will not risk a pile-up by trying to switch to long wave. Indeed, one would have to be obsessed with parliamentary reporting to switch to long wave in order to listen to "Yesterday in Parliament"; but if it were broadcast on the wavelength that one was listening to, one would not switch off because "Yesterday in Parliament" was on. I am not surprised that there has been such reluctance to switch from FM to long wave.
The document also states that the BBC remains committed to parliamentary reporting. If you believe that, you will believe anything, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My impression is that although its charter commits the BBC to reporting Parliament, it is reluctant to do so as it believes that that is not the way to attract listeners. Therefore, for a long time prior to the change that we are now discussing, it has marginalised parliamentary reporting. The most obvious example of that was the decision to move "Today in Parliament" to long wave, resulting in the loss of a considerable number of listeners. In effect, those who are responsible for programmes are saying, "We have to report Parliament and there is no way that we can get out of it, but we shall marginalise it as much as we can." Hence "Yesterday in Parliament" has moved to long wave and "The Week in Westminster" has moved to Thursdays from Saturday mornings with a loss of some 65 per cent. of listeners. The only parliamentary programme which has not been marginalised is "Westminster Live" on BBC 2, which has quite healthy viewing figures for that time of day. It is screened three times a week around the time of Question Time.
I have been in correspondence with the chairman of the governors of the BBC and have pointed out that all our freedoms and civil liberties stem from this place. The reply that I received was along the lines that I was quite right—they did not challenge that in any way—but that it is also part of the freedom of the BBC as an organisation to decide how to carry out the reporting of Parliament. I do not question that. I would be the last person to tell the BBC that it had to report Parliament at certain times on certain channels. That would be wrong and inappropriate. It would be much along the same lines as telling the BBC how to report other matters such as the military intervention in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia. I would not want the BBC to be dictated to

by the Government or Parliament, but I believe that it nevertheless has a responsibility adequately to report Parliament.
I regret that the broadsheets no longer report Parliament. Incidentally, I notice that occasionally when there is an important debate, exchange at Question Time or statement, The Times produces a summary of views, although it stopped doing that regularly some years ago. I hope that The Times and the other broadsheets continue with that.
A public service broadcasting organisation such as the BBC has a duty and responsibility adequately to report this place. It is not a matter of our egos. I know the cynical feeling in the BBC—not necessarily among the journalists, but among those who control programmes—that it is a matter of our listening to our own voices, but it cannot be trivialised in that way. We want those who want to listen to what is happening here and who recognise the importance of the decisions that are taken in both Houses to have the opportunity to do so; such reporting should not be marginalised as it has been and continues to be.
In conclusion, whatever they decide on this matter, the governors of the BBC should show firm leadership and demonstrate that they recognise that there should be adequate reporting of Parliament. If there is disagreement from the director general and the controller of Radio 4, the governors should lay down the line. It is not for us to do so, but for the governors of the BBC. I hope that they will do what they have not done recently and will face up to their responsibilities as so many of us want them to do.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on introducing the debate. He will not be surprised that I agree with everything he said this morning as we have often shared this platform with other hon. Members who have spoken this morning and those who no doubt would like to speak if there is time. We have become a well loved regular cast on the subject in the past year. Maybe the BBC will think up a new soap opera in which we can be incorporated.
I should like to endorse a few points that have already been made. The first is the comparison between television and radio. A few seconds after a television appearance, 85 per cent. of the retained memories of what has happened relate to how we look. The great advantage of radio is that one cannot do that, so people concentrate more on the content of what has been said. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said, radio is by far the better medium for getting across a complicated, many-faceted argument. That is what this place is all about. It is no coincidence that radio treats our debates far more effectively—or can do—than television. For that reason, all hon. Members who have spoken this morning have rightly concentrated on the three major programmes: "Yesterday in Parliament", "Today in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster". Radio is where one may develop an argument, or follow its twists and turns without being distracted by the visuals.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that there should be a dynamic tension between the nation's assembly and the nation's primary broadcaster. That is right, and no hon. Member is suggesting that we


should be dictating to the BBC. However, it has to be accepted that the BBC's action last year was taken against all the advice that was being offered, not only by politicians but by a great many other professionals, both within and outside the BBC. I very much welcome the fact that the chairman now says that the BBC is prepared to accept that it made a major mistake. The House has to help the BBC to restore its primacy in public service broadcasting.
The Government could help us in performing that role. I hope that, in her reply, the Minister will deal with the point that there is a vicious circle. If Ministers are prepared to go on the "Today" programme and state in detail what they will later in the day tell the House of Commons, then later in the day, no reporter, journalist or broadcaster will cover the matter in the same detail. It is a vicious circle.
If statements are made outside the House—the previous Government were just as guilty of press-release politics as the current one; it is a tendency of which all Ministers should be aware—that is the way it will go. However good John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman may be in questioning the statements of Minister or of Opposition spokesmen, they cannot perform the same function as Parliament. That is what we are paid to do. The main function of this place is to scrutinise, analyse and probe what is being said.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham said, since January, 35 statements have been made in the House. It is a remarkable number, and I welcome it—as this is where Government statements should be made—but I wonder how many of them were covered effectively by the BBC. I suspect that very few of them were.
Labour Back Benchers have a much better opportunity in this place of seeing, probing and questioning what the Government are doing than they ever will in the studios. All too often, studio set-ups comprise only a couple of people with distinctly different, usually partisan viewpoints, and do not necessarily deal with the substance of the issue.
Hon. Members have already mentioned in some detail the BBC's public service and charter obligations. I believe that Ministers also have an obligation to recognise that this is the place where major statements should be first made.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the mindset that lay behind the changes. I recall that, in both our previous debates—in March, in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and in October, in my own debate—all hon. Members stressed that we were concerned not only about what the BBC was doing, but about why it was doing it. It was as if the BBC was treating the proceedings in this place as an esoteric, odd and peculiar hobby of a very few people. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned ghettoisation.
The changes seemed to reflect a belief that stamp collecting, underwater line-dancing or following the proceedings of Parliament could appropriately be pushed into a little corner, so those who were "obsessed with Parliament"—as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said—could go away and listen to their heart's content. That is not what Parliament is about.

Parliament is—or it should be—where it all happens. This is where the Government are held to account, and where Ministers and Opposition parties' spokesmen are tested. If those at the BBC do not realise that, they have not read what was said when the new charter was considered by Parliament, or what Ministers said about the BBC at every stage from 1946 onwards, to which reference has already been made.
I shall be as brief as possible, as I know that two important speeches are yet to be made. I should, therefore, say what I think that the BBC could do to redress the situation. Of course it would be great to return to the previous position, with the enhancement that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned. However, I should like to offer option 12, which I believe really would deal with the "unacceptable democratic deficit" to which the BBC chairman referred.
"The Week in Westminster" must go to the end of the week; it is ludicrous in its current slot. If there is an extremely important debate on Friday, how will it be dealt with? Let us face the fact that, as we all know, private Members' business on Fridays can be extremely important to very many constituents. The programme must go back to Saturday. Moreover, I believe that it fits much better in the Saturday scheduling than in most other slots.
I should be reconciled to leaving "Today in Parliament" in the evening slot, on long wave. At that time in the evening, there is a rather specialist audience, and there are many other competing audiences. I would not therefore go to the stake to have it on both FM and long wave.
As hon. Members have already said, the critical programme is "Yesterday in Parliament". The point about loss of audience—which would have happened regardless of what was put in the slot—has been well covered. However, the audience that is retained is very much the informed audience that wants to be better informed, and the programme naturally follows on from the "Today" programme.
I suggest that, to ensure that there is still choice in that time slot, which the BBC says is so important, the BBC should let those who want to remain with John Humphrys and the "Today" programme go to long wave; that would really test it. If—as we are being told by the BBC—everyone wants to go with "Today" and does not want to stay with us, and if, as is suggested, the debate in the studio is far more interesting than the debate in this place, let "Today" go to long wave. That will retain choice.
If the BBC is determined that there must be choice at 8.30 am, let it make the choice offered by my suggestion, and we shall test which is the better solution. I think that the suggestion, as option 12, makes better sense than all the other 11 options offered in the paper. It would not only preserve choice, but demonstrate, once and for all, what that particular audience—from 8.30 am to 9 am, in the full period to just before the news—prefers.
Before very long, parliamentarians in both Houses will be asked to deal with the future role and responsibility of the BBC. Unless the BBC's chairman and governors respond positively to the concerns being expressed in this place, and by many other people outside it, and restore Parliament to its rightful place in the BBC's schedules, they will find us a not very sympathetic audience when they come cap in hand.

Mr. Stephen Pound: I should like, first, to state formally that, in his brief time left on the Back Benches, I am delighted to be associated with and to support my hon. and extremely ambitious Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on this matter—despite his slightly unkind remarks about those of us who prefer to appear on the nonvisual medium. As someone who has frequently been told that he has an excellent face for radio, I am somewhat sensitive about comments about avoirdupois and lack of hair. Nevertheless, I support my hon. Friend on the matter. I have also been amazed by the uniformity of opinion and agreement on the issue on both sides of the House.
The BBC has arrived at a perhaps uniquely British compromise in which it, in exchange for a unique funding mechanism, provides a unique facility and service. It is an odd arrangement, which is not immediately replicable in other countries, but it has worked extremely well. However, as is transparently obvious to all of us, it is not working now. If we are to assume that entertainment is all and that education is nothing, and to follow the Gadarene swine down market—dumbing down, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said—the future is indeed horrible.
I have seen the future. On St. Patrick's day, I found myself in Ottawa, with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—who is temporarily out of the Chamber—and we were treated to the sight of the Canadian Parliament in session. Canada has decided to have the full warts-and-all coverage. The Canadian Parliament delights in leaping to its feet and applauding certain speeches. The element of partisan activity on both sides of the Chamber is such that what little debate could possibly be discerned amidst the clamour and clapping is completely lost by ludicrous and antagonistic behaviour.
There is a lesson for us there. Whereas it is right and proper for us to criticise the BBC, we also have to accept some share of responsibility. Although incidents such as punching Ministers and waving the Mace around are, fortunately, few and far between, there have been occasions—far be it from me to enumerate them, although I am sure that they are known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—when the behaviour of right. and hon. Members, and even of hon. and learned Members, has been such as to participate in a dumbing-down process. We have a certain responsibility there.
The important point is the unique status of the British Broadcasting Committee—

Mr. MacShane: Corporation.

Mr. Pound: A lovely 1950s word that I had forgotten for a moment. The present ethos is demonstrably wrong, as has been explained today. I was greatly impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden—almost as much as I was impressed by my hon. and ambitious Friend the Member for Rotherham. However, the right hon. Gentleman made precisely the right point. If we are to support the BBC, the BBC must live up to its public service obligations.
It is not possible to live on a glorious past and an element of residual national affection, as that leads to no future. In any case, that job description has been taken by the Liberal Democratic party. All who have spoken today

have spoken as candid friends. It might be said, "May the Lord spare me from my candid friends", but in this case, we are speaking not in anger. but more in sorrow.
It is not a question of political junkies. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition, as a schoolboy in the north of England—

Mr. MacShane: Rotherham.

Mr. Pound: I was trying to avoid saying that. Whereas the rest of us subscribed to The Beano or to Fulham football club's magazine, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) subscribed to Hansard. While the rest of us employed our evenings in far more useful purposes, he would thumb his way through the Official Report. There are few people like that. However, this is not about those few people who are obsessed with the minutiae.
It is a question of democratic accountability. This is about the forum of the nation; the place where decisions are taken that affect the lives of every single man, woman and child in these islands. This is the place where we act and speak on behalf of the people of this nation. We have a duty to be as open and transparent as possible in our activities in this House. The BBC has a concomitant duty to reflect that to the nation. That is part of democracy, and part of the process that makes this place work and makes the nation work.
Moving from what I still think of as medium wave to long wave may seem an arcane point, but it is symbolic, and it is symptomatic of a major problem. It is our duty, as has been expressed today, to draw the attention of the BBC to this matter, and to implore it and ask it respectfully—maybe with a hint of anger—to think again. It makes no sense, even in the terms by which the BBC defines its objectives: an increase in audience.
I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I hope that the uniformity of opinion expressed today will be matched and responded to generously by the BBC.

Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing the debate, and on bringing the issue of the BBC's parliamentary coverage once again into the spotlight. There have been a number of excellent contributions, not least from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in a most thoughtful speech. I was particularly struck by his point about the potential ghettoisation of parliamentary coverage.
The audience measurements undertaken by Radio Joint Audience Research tell us that there has been a catastrophic drop in audiences for the parliamentary flagship programmes "The Week in Westminster", down by 65 per cent., and "Yesterday in Parliament", down by 73 per cent. Yet the BBC has failed to capture new listeners for the lengthened "Today" programme from 8.30 to 9 am.
In March 1998, the current changes were imminent. A number of journalists, many hon. Members and Madam Speaker forcefully tried to tell the BBC that the proposed changes would backfire. Indeed, Madam Speaker placed the correspondence on this subject with the chairman of


the BBC in the House of Commons Library. On the issue, the BBC supplied answers to what it described as "frequently asked questions". One such question was:
Does this package of proposals represent an effort to sideline parliamentary coverage, which the BBC regards as unpopular?
The answer was:
Not at all. Our parliamentary coverage on Radio 4 will increase by an hour-and-a-quarter a week when Parliament is in session in the new schedule. Far from telling us that the Radio 4 audience doesn't appreciate politics, our review told us that parliamentary programmes were highly valued by the audience, and that Radio 4 listeners are particularly receptive to this sort of programming. What we have attempted to do with the new schedule is to enhance our coverage and place it where its audience will appreciate it most.
Indeed. Such was the level of appreciation that three out of four listeners to "Yesterday in Parliament" simply switched off. Now we are invited, after 12 months, to respond to further consultations by the BBC.
What happened last time? On the core programmes for parliamentary coverage, the BBC was clearly warned what would happen, but went ahead. It amuses me to think of the sort of interview that John Humphrys or Jeremy Paxman might conduct on such points. Nowhere in the covering letter from the BBC, dated 24 March, or in the consultation document itself do we see the word "regret", or even "disappointment". I am therefore glad that the hon. Member for Rotherham read out that letter from the BBC chairman.
The conclusion to the latest consultation says:
The BBC approaches this review with an open mind and will give careful consideration to the outcome of the consultation exercise. At present, following assessment of the available audience research, the BBC considers that it may be necessary to re-balance, to some extent, the need for Radio 4 to offer an attractive choice of listening in a crowded radio market with the BBC's obligations to give appropriate prominence to coverage of parliamentary proceedings as a public service. The BBC is open to change and wishes to identify the best way of reconciling the competing interests of different audiences.
I urge hon. Members to react constructively to the challenge and to let the BBC know their views. This is an opportunity that must be grasped, and we have heard some interesting viewpoints today, not least from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
The BBC occupies a central place in the history and affections of the British people. It enjoys a considerable reputation abroad. Undoubtedly, there are many in the Balkans who today are being given a different and accurate viewpoint through the incomparable World Service. British actors and actresses are enjoying extraordinary acclaim. In the past decade, we have seen an upsurge of creative success in Britain. Dramas put on by the BBC have been quite brilliant; "Great Expectations" has got off to an excellent start. There is much to be proud of.
The BBC must face up to the digital challenge. As part of that, I recently saw for myself its "Where's Q?" digital archive facility, which is unique and fascinating. Digitalisation is here to stay, and I applaud the BBC for its response. The BBC's revamped annual report and accounts is a first-rate and informative document.
As far as political coverage is concerned, for many the day begins with "Today" and ends with "Newsnight"; required listening for a considerable number of people

interested in public affairs. Additionally, "Any Questions" presents a lively range of political views on the radio each Friday evening. Equally, "Question Time" provides similar high-quality debate and argument on television.
The BBC is charged with a special public service responsibility. We have a Government with a large majority: an Executive that is all-powerful. Madam Speaker has frequently had to complain about announcements being made outside the House. In that atmosphere, the BBC must be very cautious. Several BBC employees have found jobs with the Government. Complaints have been made by senior journalists, notably Michael Brunson of ITN, about bullying by the Government.
Parliament provides a scrutiny of an all-powerful Executive, through oral or written questions, debates in the Chamber or Select Committee proceedings. The reporting of Parliament, especially in current circumstances, is extremely important. It is true that we are involved in a war although, mercifully, it has not affected us directly in this country.
At times of crisis, Parliament becomes the focal point of the nation. Today we do not have such terrible problems as mass unemployment or a realistic threat of global nuclear war, so on the whole the British people can wear their politics lightly, but that will inevitably change one day, in circumstances that we cannot foresee.
Parliament may be seen by many as boring, but a lot of important elements in life may not be headline-grabbing. Parliamentary coverage cannot be evaluated on its entertainment appeal. The BBC has made a mistake in its parliamentary coverage. In a rapidly changing marketplace, any response will not be easy to implement. Listeners and viewers are being given a multitude of choices, but it is none the less up to us to ensure that the BBC's public responsibility to Parliament and to the people of Britain whom we seek to protect is properly upheld.
I hope that, this time, the BBC will understand that. It is up to us to respond constructively and ensure that the central importance of our parliamentary proceedings is restored. I hope that today's debate will help the BBC in that process.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for securing this important debate. It is his second debate of this kind, and we are all extremely grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to air our views. I hope that the BBC will cover this debate. I am only sorry that it is not able to be present this morning. I understand that it is holding a seminar to discuss its funding. Perhaps that is appropriate in the circumstances.
My hon. Friend said that he did not want us to engage in Beeb-bashing. I endorse that view. It is important that we work together with the BBC, and I welcome its acknowledgement that it may have taken the wrong decision. We all welcome the new spirit of consultation. I hope that all hon. Members will respond to that consultation.
My hon. Friend said that he hoped that I would not only give the Government's position but speak personally. There is a longstanding convention that broadcasting


Ministers avoid comment on programming issues, and I do not want to ignore that convention, but the BBC's governing instruments, the royal charter and agreement, which set the overall framework for its activities say specifically that the BBC shall
undertake an appropriate process of public consultation prior to making any material change to the nature of the Home Service.
That means that the BBC has a duty to listen to the consumer.
The agreement also contains a specific programming requirement, first introduced in 1947, that the corporation
shall transmit an impartial account day by day prepared by professional reporters of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the reduction in listeners following the changes, but the figures bear repeating. The BBC says that, although the total number of hours of parliamentary coverage on Radio 4 has increased, the overall reach is down by 26 per cent., with sharp falls in audience figures for "Yesterday in Parliament", which is down 73 per cent., from 3.13 million in 1997 to 830,000 in 1998, and "The Week in Westminster", down 65 per cent. from 658,000 to 227,000.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised the change in the arrangements for regional political editors in a previous Adjournment debate. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties still have some concern about that change. As a constituency Member, I am not entirely clear who my regional political editor is.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made the point that the BBC is not there merely to chase ratings and that it has a requirement under its charter to ensure that our proceedings are properly covered. He reminded us that the charter is up for renewal in 2006, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to start the debate on that this morning.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) mentioned the fact that "The Week in Westminster" now seems to be a vehicle for Front Benchers. Like this debate, which is very much for Back Benchers—that is why I have not sought to speak for too long—"The Week in Westminster" should be an opportunity for Back Benchers to ensure that the country can hear what they are doing on behalf of their constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spoke of the broadcasting revolution that is taking place and suggested that perhaps we had not taken it into account. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is very knowledgable on the subject, rightly spoke of the importance of the BBC's duty to inform, educate and entertain—in that order—and suggested that, with the proliferation of channels, that duty was more important than ever.

Mr. Roger Gale: Other countries have dedicated parliamentary channels, such as C-Span in America and C-Pac in Canada, and the BBC has introduced its Parliamentary channel. Is not it a little hypocritical of us to criticise the BBC, when we can get Sky Sports on the Palace of Westminster circuit, but not the Parliamentary channel? Should we not do something about that?

Janet Anderson: I take note of that contribution.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made the point that it is almost inevitable that the BBC's audience share will reduce, and that must be taken on board. I thank him for his compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has supported the remarks of Mr. Alan Yentob, who said that quality must come before audience-chasing. Next month, my right hon. Friend and I will have meetings with the BBC's joint boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that a reduction in listeners may have been predictable but the size of the reduction was stunning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is a great supporter of the BBC. When I first took on this job, one of the first things that I learned is that, on important state occasions, people always turn to the BBC for coverage. That is, quite rightly, how the BBC is regarded.
I welcome the BBC's commitment to consult on the changes. 1 hope that it will hear the message that the House has sent this morning. It is a loud and clear message and I hope that the BBC will take to heart the gist—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is time for our next debate.

Wildlife

11 am

Mr. Colin Breed: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of wildlife protection and in particular the current state of many of our sites of special scientific interest—SSSIs. The debate is most relevant to my constituency. I have received a number of letters from constituents as a number of extremely important Cornish SSSIs are under threat.
SSSIs form the core of Britain's natural heritage—the so-called crown jewels—and contain a significant proportion of the remaining rare habitats and species in the United Kingdom; for example, 90 per cent. of the remaining reed beds in the UK have an SSSI designation. At the time, they were properly designated, but far too often their subsequent protection has been woeful. The protection of SSSIs is vital, not only to safeguard part of our natural heritage, but to ensure that the UK fulfils its international commitments under EU birds and habitats directives, the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance and the convention on biological diversity. Once destroyed, wildlife habitats that have sometimes taken thousands of years to evolve can never be replaced.
When such habitats disappear, so does the wildlife that depends on them. The last fragments of woods, bogs, heathlands and meadows are havens that sustain many of our threatened animals and plants. There are a number of cases of damage to SSSIs that should be brought to the Minister's attention. The Lynher estuary is an important SSSI with a total of 687 hectares in south-east Cornwall—my constituency. The area is of national importance because of its role as a major site for wintering birds. It is estimated that the site is used by 6,000 wild fowl and about 10,000 waders, and is an important roosting area for 5,000 widgeon. However, the site has been badly damaged by intrusive agricultural activities and infilling.
To take a more recent example, during the past few weeks at Rosenannon bog and downs near Bodmin in Cornwall, an SSSI has been damaged by fire and more than half of the site has been severely damaged. The site was a crucial breeding ground for bird species such as skylark and stonechat and has been partially destroyed. It is suspected that the fire was caused by arson, although we do not know yet. No prosecutions have been brought, nor could they have been, because damage to the SSSI was caused by a third party rather than by the owner or occupier.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the early 1980s, I was a member of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill Committee in which the question of prosecutions arose. We spent 100 hours in Committee discussing these matters. From his experience, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is inadequate, or is it that the legal authorities do not bother to prosecute—or do not feel like prosecuting—under the complex regulations?

Mr. Breed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which is obviously based on his great experience. There have been no prosecutions, but I am not certain whether that is because of the inadequacy of the law or the inactivity of those prosecuting. It is a

difficult matter. The evidence that needs to be obtained is part of the problem, but sometimes the prosecuting authorities consider that the degree of work and the costs involved are out of all proportion to the likelihood of obtaining a successful prosecution. Even then, the penalties that may be inflicted might not reflect the costs involved.
Surprisingly, it is not currently an offence for a third party to damage an SSSI: for example, fly tipping, which is unfortunately happening more often; the use of off-road vehicles, which is increasing in popularity; and sometimes arson, may well be illegal under other forms of legislation, but they do not currently constitute an offence of causing damage to SSSIs. There seems to be a loophole in the law that could be closed. However, even in cases where the damage is caused by the owner or occupier of the land, there is currently no way of prosecuting the offender or, more importantly, of preventing the damage from happening to the site in the first place.
On one occasion, a landowner wanted to plough an SSSI to grow flax. He sent his proposal to English Nature, but English Nature could only try to persuade that farmer not to carry out his plan. Unfortunately, he decided to plough the area regardless, causing severe damage and English Nature had no power to prevent that. Without the teeth needed to enforce protection of that site, all that English Nature could do was to sit by and watch another precious SSSI being raped for commercial interest. One of the most significant factors in that case was that of "forgone payments". Such payments are made to landowners as compensation for not carrying out an activity such as ploughing up land, as opposed to financial incentives to help landowners manage triple SSSIs positively. The compensation system must be changed to reflect what we really want—that is positive management, not passive inactivity.
The picture that I have presented of some parts of the south-west is certainly not unique. There are almost 5,000 SSSIs in England and Wales, and during the past six years there have been more than 2,000 cases of damage to those sites; 45 per cent. of all SSSIs in England are considered to be in an "unfavourable conservation status". Not only are the existing SSSIs in decline, but in England and Wales at least 46 sites have lost the SSSI status they had gained since 1981.
Every year, the Government statutory wildlife agencies publish data in reports that indicate damage to SSSIs in the previous year. On average, more than 300 sites are lost or damaged every year. SSSIs are not being protected from damage, yet they represent some of the most significant environmental sites in the UK; they are identified as "special", but are afforded little, if any, real protection to ensure that they can sustain that status.
The monitoring and gathering of data is one of the few things that the Government statutory wildlife agencies can do where SSSIs are concerned. However, there is no systematic monitoring of those sites. Information about damage is gathered only when local agency teams become aware of problems, so large amounts of damage often remain unrecorded and it is likely that the actual amount of damage will probably be much worse than the recorded figures. That situation is made even worse because conservation agency staff can inspect SSSIs only with the permission of the owner. Clearly, that must be changed if proper monitoring and early action are to be capable of implementation.
Ceredigion county council was responsible for the destruction of an SSSI near Goginan, east of Aberystwyth. Reclamation work on an old mine working had been agreed within strict conditions, yet, in breach of the conditions, a fence was moved allowing additional excavations and subsequently the destruction of rare lichens. The council escaped prosecution simply because its officials entered the site and carried out the work without the written authority of the landowner. That case shows how ludicrous the current situation is, when a third party can escape prosecution in that manner. Of course, it does nothing to deter other potential offenders from damaging SSSIs.
One of the most significant threats to SSSIs is the growing problem of water abstraction and pollution. Friends of the Earth estimate that 338 sites are under threat from loss of water. About one third of SSSIs can be described as wetlands, which are clearly damaged by water shortage and pollution. The damage may not be direct. Miles upstream, water may have been polluted, diverted or extracted with the result of enormous damage to an SSSI or an important wetland.
Development and construction is another major threat, currently affecting an estimated 220 sites. Sometimes, the economic and structural needs of a region clearly warrant new development. My part of the country has just received objective 1 status, and we want real economic growth. However, the environmental costs of such projects must be considered.
I sat on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, and I believed that the environmental aspects of RDA work should be given much higher priority and should carry more weight in the planning process. Specifically, SSSIs should be given strong and measurable indicators of environmental value so that a fair balance of overall costs and benefits can be struck against the indicators of a region's economic needs before development takes place.
Every day, a site is damaged or lost for good. Delay means destruction of more precious sites, and public concern is coming to a head. Only yesterday, wildlife organisations delivered 250,000 pledges calling for urgent action to prevent endangered wildlife to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The support in the country for action is reflected in the House, as noted yesterday at Question Time by the Minister for the Environment. A majority of MPs have signed early-day motion 11 to support the Wildlife Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). Many Members welcomed Labour's manifesto commitment to greater protection of wildlife, but that commitment has not yet been fulfilled in legislation.
The Government's Green Paper does not go as far as another private Member's Bill that the Labour party supported when in Opposition. The consultation paper, "Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Better Protection and Management", is welcome, but it does not mention some serious threats to wildlife sites. The failure to recognise the problems of peat extraction and old mineral permissions are worrying. Permissions, often given many years ago and sometimes poorly drafted, are being ruthlessly exploited by greedy commercial concerns. We continue to condone the destruction of lowland raised peat bogs such as Thorne moor and Hatfield moor, although they are some of our best wildlife habitats. If the

whole Green Paper became law, it would still not stop destruction of those sites by the peat industry, although I recognise the difficulties and costs of compensation.
The Green Paper is a welcome move in the right direction. It contains proposals to require restoration of an SSSI after it has been deliberately damaged. However, the proposals do not solve real problems on the ground. The legal changes proposed signal only modest change that will not meet the need for comprehensive protection. Furthermore, the timetable for action is inadequate. Changes must be made now to protect existing untouched SSSIs and to help to restore sites that have been damaged.
SSSIs are under threat in all parts of the country. That is bad enough, but it is worse that the perpetrators of the damage get away scot free and without prosecution. We are often critical of environmental damage in less developed countries, such as Brazil. Indeed, some hon. Members are today visiting South America. In our own prosperous country, however, SSSIs remain largely unprotected as they cannot be valued by any conventional economic price formula. The Members visiting South America might have found some desecration a little closer to home.
There is enormous public and parliamentary support for statutory protection of our wildlife and countryside. The Government must act to give important wildlife areas legal protection. They are making the right noises, but the consultation paper does not cover all the important threats. Meanwhile, time is of the essence. More sites are being damaged every day.

Mr. Alan Clark: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House for arriving a couple of minutes late for the debate.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that protection must be extended to SSSIs, and support for early-day motion 11 testifies to the House's view. However, there must be penalties and prosecutions if protection is violated. The person or company who violates sites must be susceptible to truly penal redress.
Often, the stakes are so high and the speculative possibilities of extraction so immense that people will ride roughshod over protection. They will accept a prosecution, paying perhaps some nominal fine, but perhaps not even that. Unless we put in place a penalty system that truly deters people from acting in that way, legislation, however well intentioned, will probably not have much effect.

Mr. Breed: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Competition Act 1998, the Government decided that penalties on companies should be a percentage of their turnover. Those are real penalties. The Government should indicate clearly what the penalties will be for violating SSSIs, and we should also insist that sites are reinstated as far as possible so that there is no incentive for people to challenge the system, pay a relatively modest fine, then secure considerable commercial advantage from exploitation of a site. Penalties must relate to the commercial profitability that may be generated from damaging a site.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am prompted by the interventions of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea


(Mr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to ask whether my hon. Friend has considered that, because commercial operators need planning or other permissions, a further way in which to ensure that they understand the penalties would be to bar them from development in a county in which they have exploited or abused an SSSI. Many imaginative means could be employed to ensure that developers realise that they would suffer real disadvantage if they interfered with sites, rather than simply suffering a penalty that can be written off against company profits for the following year.

Mr. Breed: I agree. We need some modest change to the planning process as well as a Bill to protect wildlife. There is no doubt that many concerns and individuals exploit loopholes in the planning system and in legislation to carry out harmful development. Often, local authorities are forced to back down in the face of the costly challenges that companies and individuals can make. We should support local authorities that fight such actions on appeal to maintain the regulation and control that most people want.
Finally, I call on the Minister for two specific assurances. First, I would like an assurance that the Government will widen the debate and consider key threats to SSSIs. That is not included in the Green Paper, which was a discussion document. Indeed, it has generated much discussion, and I hope that some of the approximately 600 contributions to that debate will have raised many wider issues and will taken into account. Secondly, will the Minister assure me that a wildlife protection Bill will be mentioned in the Queen's Speech later this year?
We are rightly proud of our heritage, and we provide significant protection for our valuable old buildings. I understand that the Minister will today declare all sorts of additional buildings in my county to be of grade 1, grade 2* or grade 2 status. That is right; some of those buildings are hundreds of years old—but why can we not provide at least the same protection for our wildlife sites, which are often thousands of years old?

Mrs. Helen Brinton: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate, as I am sure we all do, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), on securing it. Having heard his contribution, and some of the interventions in his speech, I suspect that many of us on both sides of the House will make the same points. Not only do we want legislation, we want legislation with teeth. I add my voice to those calling for new legislation to protect and enhance wildlife.
We have heard much about damage and destruction of our wildlife sites. Many hon. Members are already familiar with the facts and figures, but there may be one or two who are not. More than 300 sites of special scientific interest—the best wildlife sites in the United Kingdom—are damaged every year. Between 1991 and 1996 one in five SSSIs in England and Wales were damaged, and 45 per cent. of English SSSIs are in an "unfavourable condition"—a description that may rather understate the case.
Since 1945, we have lost 30 to 50 per cent. of our ancient woodland and 80 per cent. of our chalk and limestone grasslands. Those are not small percentages. I was shocked when my research revealed that 95 per cent. of our wildflower meadows have also been lost.
Many of the problems affecting wildlife habitats, especially SSSIs, are not the result of direct destruction by development, as happened in the past; they are the result of neglect, which is partly due to inadequate funding. The problems are also caused by continued damage by agricultural practices and water abstraction. Drying of wetlands and low river flows are affecting the quality and sometimes the very existence of some of our major important wildlife sites.
The problems caused by water abstraction will increase as the demand for water rises with the projected growth in the number of households. My constituency of Peterborough is in an area in which rivers and wetlands are an important feature, with many designated sites, including the Nene and Ouse washes. Yet we have already lost much of our precious fenland. I note with great concern that the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire now have less wildlife per hectare than anywhere else in the country. Those are shocking statistics.
I am glad to say that in this Session the Government are engaged in several excellent on-going consultations, including those on water abstraction licensing and planning regulations, which should, as all of us on both sides of the House would expect, result in measures that will do much to improve the situation.
Many aspects of the Government's consultation paper on SSSIs have been strongly supported by those who are professionally concerned with conservation. However, I am sure that I am not alone in believing that there are still gaps that require urgent remedy, and that we need a whole package of new measures.
Those measures would include increased powers for wildlife agencies to encourage positive management and to stop damaging operations on all SSSIs, and powers of entry to wildlife areas for agency staff. As we have already heard, there must be increased penalties—penalties with teeth—for offences. There must also be powers to secure the restoration of damaged sites, and all public bodies must have a duty to protect and manage SSSIs. Finally, there must be greater protection for species on land water and in the sea, and protection of habitats outside SSSIs.
Labour Members are proud that it was a Labour Government who introduced the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. That was a long time ago; the Act was ground-breaking then, but it is hardly surprising that it is now a touch out of date. I ask the Minister to encourage the Government to include proposals for new wildlife laws in the next Queen's Speech.

Mr. Tom Brake: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing a debate on such a crucial issue. My hon. Friend has illustrated the importance of protecting wildlife in his Cornwall constituency. I shall concentrate on the importance of such measures nationally.


The protection of wildlife and sites of special scientific interest is not a foreign issue to the House, as is reflected in the massive support for early day motion 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and supported by Members from all parts of the House, representing both rural and urban constituencies. I understand that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association also believe that some reforms are needed.
The report "50 Years of Extinction", published yesterday by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, lists many SSSIs that have been damaged since 1949. One of the listed sites nearest to my constituency is Rainham marsh, where a road has been put through part of the site and the rest is threatened by warehouse development. I am afraid that it seems that the local council favours development on that site.
That is one of the better known examples of SSSIs under threat, but there are thousands of other threatened sites throughout the country, many of which are not SSSIs but are just as worthy of protection, which I am afraid is not now afforded. For instance, in my constituency there are Ruffet wood and Big wood, which are local nature reserves, and an area of the Roundshaw downs.
As we have already heard, and will no doubt continue to hear, this is a one-sided debate. There is broad agreement that action needs to be taken—an argument accepted by the official Opposition, by Labour Members and by the Liberal Democrats. That argument has also been enthusiastically endorsed by the Minister for the Environment. Only last month, he told a lobby that the Government would go for legislation at the earliest opportunity. In fact, although I do not have a transcript of what he said, I think that he was even firmer than that, and said that he was staking his credibility on securing legislation in this Parliament.
The issue is therefore not whether but how we shall act—or more crucially, when we shall act. I was hoping that the position would be clarified in a response to a parliamentary question that I received yesterday. Sadly, the familiar mantra about the Government seeking to act, but only as and when time allows, was repeated. While the argument may have been won in the House, as early-day motion 11 confirms, it has not yet been won in Whitehall. I understand that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has four possibilities for the Queen's Speech, including wildlife legislation. It is perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister who needs to be persuaded of the urgency of the task. Yesterday, he was due to receive 250,000 wildlife pledges from supporters of 22 environmental organisations, but pulled out at the last moment. He was in the House for the statement on Kosovo, but another Minister should have been there to receive them.
The Deputy Prime Minister should not doubt that the task is urgent, not least because our international credibility depends on it. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall touched on that. I and other members of the Environment Sub-Committee are flying this evening to Brazil and Venezuela to discuss international environmental agreements, but we will also talk about local environmental issues. We will not be in a position to complain about how developing countries treat their environments when a relatively prosperous country such as Britain treats its environment so carelessly and fails to deliver on its stated 1992 commitment in Rio to

maintain biodiversity. As hon. Members have noted, an SSSI is destroyed or damaged every day. As there are relatively few such sites—6,500—many of which are small, it is obvious that this urgent problem needs to be tackled as soon as possible.
The effect of such damage is devastating. I shall try not to repeat examples that other hon. Members have cited. Lapwings have declined by 70 per cent. over the past 10 years in some SSSIs. When should something be done? As soon as possible, if tomorrow is not an option, and that means in this Session of Parliament. The second issue is how, a matter which must be considered in its own right. I hope that the Government will advance specific proposals on wildlife. Alternatively, they could link wildlife with the right to roam and access to the countryside. That is not ideal, but it would be better than nothing.
The Minister knows that it was a Labour Government who first introduced serious legislation to protect wildlife, for which they should be commended. It was crucial to that Government's reforming credentials. The desire of the Prime Minister and his Deputy to be seen as heading the last great reforming Government of the century is well known. The 250,000 people whose wildlife pledges I and the hon. Member for Pavilion delivered to No. 10 yesterday believe that protecting wildlife for future generations is crucial to any such claim.

Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing the debate. The enormous number of signatures to early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), and the submission of a petition with 250,000 signatures yesterday reflect growing public awareness. We need to remember that more people choose to belong to wildlife and environmental organisations than to join political parties, churches, trade unions or any other voluntary associations. Parliament ignores that at its peril.
The vulnerability of sites of special scientific interest, the dangers that they face and the scale of the damage has been well documented by other hon. Members. I want to rebalance the debate by concentrating on the overwhelming majority of the country that is not subject to SSSI legislation. By force of circumstance, I happen to have lived in the same village for the past 27 years, which has allowed me to observe the changing nature of wildlife in my immediate environment. Three things, above all, are apparent.
First, there has been a drastic decline in wildlife in areas subject to agriculture. Secondly, there has been a remarkable increase in wildlife in ordinary, domestic gardens. Thirdly, wildlife has suffered drastic effects from various developments, particularly new housing, and the associated increase in the transport infrastructure, in green-belt areas. I conclude that the public desire to see more wildlife in their immediate environment. That is why so many people are making strenuous efforts to improve biodiversity in their own back gardens.

Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that permitted development rights in people's


back gardens mean that there is no protection for wild species on such sites? An owner-occupier can build an extensive patio or garden shed over a site.

Mr. Chaytor: I agree. That reinforces the point that to focus entirely on SSSIs is to ignore the bigger picture. We should not regard wildlife as something that has to be protected in a few specialist areas; it needs to be encouraged across the country, in urban, suburban and rural areas.
The other conclusion that I draw from my observations of my immediate environment over the past generation is the appalling effect of the common agricultural policy. There is a growing realisation of the need for change, about which there has been a major debate. I am not yet sure that, in the desire to reduce subsidy and move to a more market-driven agriculture, we have yet accepted fully the need to provide more and more incentives for farmers to be the guardians of the countryside and biodiversity rather than simply adjusting their production to a market-based system.
The analogy drawn earlier between the protection of SSSIs and of listed buildings is important. It is as foolish and self-defeating to protect listed buildings in isolation without wider concern for preserving our heritage as it is to see wildlife preservation only in terms of the protection of SSSIs. We need to take a far broader approach to wildlife preservation and adopt a range of measures across Departments to encourage biodiversity over the whole country.
As with all debates on the environment, it is important that the Minister should respond to our points. We know that the Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have an unswerving commitment to the preservation, protection and enhancement of biodiversity, but the power to achieve that does not always lie with that Department. My second major point is that we must constantly reinforce the message that other Departments have as much, if not more, power to determine the future of wildlife. That is especially true of the Department of Trade and Industry and its responsibilities for energy policy, because our obsession with burning fossil fuels and generating nuclear power—instead of the development of renewable energy policies—has drastically reduced biodiversity. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its traditional support for the common agricultural policy is thankfully now changing, but much more work needs to be done.
The Department for Education and Employment also has a role to play. I recently visited Greenhill primary school in my constituency. It designated a week as its environment week, and all the school's activities were devoted to developing awareness in the children of the importance of biodiversity. I was privileged to attend a presentation by pupils of the school in which they demonstrated the enormous level of interest that young people have in biodiversity and how effective that can be when channelled by teachers into constructive and informative educational activity.
The role of the Treasury is of crucial importance, which brings me to my next point. Without a consistent and coherent implementation of a green tax policy, there is

little future for wildlife and biodiversity. The Budget made an important step towards a green tax policy. However, although 250,000 people will sign a petition in support of environmental protection and the preservation of wildlife, when the difficult decisions that put that desire into effect have to be taken, people get nervous. The truckers and their concern about the changes in diesel tax are one example of that, but there are many others.
I was pleased to see from the Red Book that the Government remain committed to a tax on aggregates. Although the tax did not appear in the Budget, discussions are continuing and the Government have reinforced their intention to legislate if voluntary agreement cannot be reached with the companies concerned. Mineral extraction has been disastrous for the variety of our wildlife. We must continue to put pressure on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and to support the commitment shown by environment Ministers, but it is other Departments—especially the Treasury—that hold the key to the future of wildlife.

Mr. Breed: The hon. Gentleman mentioned mineral extractions and the Treasury. The problem of compensation includes the relative values of the site in economic terms and in its preservation for wildlife. Does he agree that existing planning legislation does not emphasise sufficiently that land should be reinstated once its economic purpose has been achieved? That is a requirement in SSSIs and in areas of outstanding natural beauty, but when permission is given for any development that might destroy the land, it should be automatic that the landowner is obliged to reinstate the land once the development has ceased.

Mr. Chaytor: That is an important point and I agree completely. Such issues will increasingly become the responsibility of regional development agencies and it is important that they put a commitment to sustainable development at the heart of their economic development programme. I am delighted that that has already been done in the north-west.

Mr. Simon Burns: I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments about green taxes and the Treasury. Does he believe that there is a role for incentives—tax breaks—for the good guys instead of taxation which inevitably means paying more? We should help those who are more environmentally friendly, whether driving cars or lorries, with tax breaks, and penalise those with dirty lorries or high-polluting cars. People could then offset the cost of making their vehicles more environmentally friendly.

Mr. Chaytor: I agree, and that is what the Government did in the Budget. However, green taxes do not inevitably mean that more tax will be paid, because they can redistribute the way in which tax is paid. Many of the good green taxes are fiscally neutral in their attempt to shift the burden of taxation from activities that are generally considered good, such as labour, to pollution, which is generally considered to be bad.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that green taxes should be fiscally neutral. The problem is that the measures in the Budget may be fiscally neutral in their


overall effect, but they are not fiscally neutral in their effect on individual businesses in certain sectors of the economy.

Mr. Chaytor: I agree; although I said that green taxes could be fiscally neutral, they do not necessarily have to be so. It is true that a fundamental rebalancing of the tax system is taking place, the like of which we have not seen for many years, and it will mean winners and losers. However, we should not allow local difficulties to get in the way of the general strategy. It is right, although it must be applied sensitively—and within a generation it will have huge beneficial effects on biodiversity, wildlife, and the quality of our environment.
I congratulate the Government on their many positive initiatives on a range of topics. I especially wish to draw attention to the importance of the publication of the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan a few weeks ago. This debate should send the message that the Government's various initiatives and consultations need to be drawn together. I disagree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) because I think that a future wildlife Bill should tie together the various wildlife and countryside issues, including the right to roam.

Mr. Brake: If those two issues were linked, the Bill would get bogged down in the other place.

Mr. Chaytor: One would hope that the nature of the other place will change in the not too distant future. The important point is that wildlife cannot be preserved in isolation, because it must permeate our whole environment. That is why I am arguing for comprehensive wildlife and countryside legislation. We should not adopt a piecemeal approach and tackle the issue section by section: we need a single block of comprehensive legislation.
To their credit, this Government—like the post-war Government—have improved many policy areas in need of fundamental reform. They have grasped the nettle in the crucial areas of welfare and health care reform, and we must now continue that process by introducing wildlife and countryside legislation. By making a clear commitment to include such legislation in next year's Queen's Speech, we will not only fulfil Labour's promise to put the environment at the heart of Government policy, but leave a lasting legacy for the new millennium.

Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing this important debate. We welcome the opportunity on a Wednesday morning to discuss intelligently and calmly and at reasonable length a subject of critical importance. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, this is a very topical issue, given early-day motion 11 and the Government's moves to examine wildlife issues, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and to introduce legislation to address several problems that have been discussed in the debate.
The sooner we get such legislation, the better. I echo the comments of several hon. Members—the fact was reiterated at Environment questions yesterday afternoon—

that this is a matter of urgency, and I hope that the Government will introduce relevant legislation in next year's Queen's Speech. However, for several reasons, I am not as enthusiastic as are the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Carshalton and Wallington about introducing Christmas tree-type legislation. The wildlife aspects of any legislation would command universal support in the Chamber and could be piloted through Parliament in an intelligent and non-partisan manner. The danger with Christmas tree-type legislation is that it introduces certain politically controversial issues that might prove self-defeating.

Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "Christmas tree legislation"? We are talking about wildlife.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. It is a parliamentary expression that refers to including several issues within a broad subject base. To take the wildlife example, the Government might introduce legislation regarding sites of special scientific interest and other wildlife considerations. They might then add to that the issue of access to the countryside, possibly hunting—which, although a countryside issue, would be fraught with danger—and other unrelated issues that come under the umbrella of the countryside. I saw the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) look towards heaven when I mentioned the "H" word. However, certain lobby groups are seeking to put pressure on the Government to include hunting in any wildlife Bill.
My point is that, although there would be almost universal support for a wildlife measure, other issues that come under the countryside umbrella are far more controversial. It would be sad if the Government caused problems by making such badly needed legislation a Christmas tree-type measure. I hope that they will consider my concerns seriously when taking decisions about what will be in the next Queen's Speech.
We share an interest in protecting our natural heritage. All types of animal and plant life need protection for their own sake and because of the many benefits that they provide to mankind and the way in which they interact as part of our fragile eco-structure. Caring for the environment must be central to any society's responsibilities. Economic growth and environmental protection must be balanced carefully and integrated successfully.
This generation clearly needs the homes, jobs, food and services that only continued economic growth can provide. However, at the same time, common sense demands that economic growth be sustainable. It would be wrong to limit the ability of future generations to meet their own needs or to pass heavy environmental costs to them. We must consider and manage the environmental consequences of our actions today in the context of their future implications for the environment, the countryside and wildlife. We must take a long-term view and focus more on the quality of life of both this and future generations, and not simply on current economic facts of life.
I listened with interest to several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Peterborough and for Bury, North, who paid tribute to the Labour Government of 1945–1951 and the National Parks and Access to the


Countryside Act 1949. I share their views about that legislation, but I am slightly perplexed at their suggestion that all legislation and Government action to improve and protect the environment stopped in 1949 and began again only on 2 May 1997. I appreciate that the hon. Members were making a point for internal consumption—the Government Whip is on the Front Bench. However, I was slightly puzzled by their failure to mention the landmark Clean Air Act 1956, which did so much to protect the environment and plant and animal life in this country, particularly in London and in other big cities.

Mrs. Brinton: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and I mentioned the sterling environmental achievements of the reforming Labour Administration of 1945. Has the hon. Gentleman read the minutes or reports of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, which comprises hon. Members from four political parties? If he reads those documents closely, he will see that all members of the Select Committee give credit, where it is due, to Governments of all political colours.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady's initial comment is slightly redundant. She will remember the fascinating debate—in which she and I participated—in this Chamber only four Wednesdays ago when we discussed the Select Committee's report. Some six months after its publication, I was able to study and read the report in depth, and I do not dispute the hon. Lady's comments about its contents.
My point is that the speeches made today in the Chamber—which have a wider audience—did not reflect the contents of that report. Labour Members seemed to suggest that governmental action on the environment stopped in 1949 with landmark legislation and resumed on 2 May 1997. The Clean Air Act 1956 and other measures, including our signing up to the Rio commitments in 1992 under the previous Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), are equally important. They will help us to improve the environment of not only this country but the rest of the world—because the environment does not respect national or geographical boundaries.
Of course, no debate on the environment could take place without the House paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have the decency to recognise him as having been a pioneer Secretary of State for the Environment concerned about advancing environmental considerations.
I remind the House that Conservative Governments had a good record on the environment, and under my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, passed the 1981 Act and established SSSIs and environmentally sensitive areas. We were responsible also for the expansion of the countryside stewardship scheme. The Environment Act 1995 provided Parliament with the powers to implement a statutory scheme to protect the hedgerows, which are so crucial to sustaining wildlife and enabling it to thrive in the countryside. The previous Administration established the biodiversity action plan and the biodiversity steering group, which committed Britain to tough targets.
I turn now to the problems of SSSIs, which have featured significantly in the debate. As hon. Members have said, SSSIs cover approximately 7 per cent. of the land of England and Wales, and there are more than 5,500 sites. They represent the best examples of our natural heritage of wildlife habitats, geographical features and land forms. In addition, environmentally sensitive areas cover about 15 per cent. of the land of the United Kingdom.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, in an excellent brief that it provided for the debate, has drawn attention to serious problems with SSSIs. In the past six years, more than 2,000 have been damaged, just under half have an unfavourable conservation status, 46 sites have lost their status altogether and hundreds have had part of the designation deleted. As it was pointed out at Environment questions yesterday, it is important that more is done through the introduction, as soon as possible, of a wildlife or countryside Bill to strengthen the regime and its protection and enforcement and so avoid the continued demise and denigration of those sites. Once a site is lost, it is difficult, if not impossible, to restore it to its former condition.
I found interesting the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) and the intervention—I believe that it was made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, but I may be wrong—about penalties for people who actively damage SSSIs and seek to walk away from any responsibility. There is little point, as experience has shown, in having legislation to protect areas or certain features of our countryside if there are no powers to punish people who wilfully seek to destroy or denigrate them. I hope that when the Government introduce their legislation, they will consider that.
The Conservative party fully understands that the market can often be brought to bear on environmental problems. People must appreciate that the market is not simply a negative force but has an important positive role to play in environmental protection. Economic instruments make environmental costs more explicit and identifiable and thereby ensure that they are properly taken into account. In government, we operated a number of schemes to provide financial incentives for environmentally friendly farming, such as the introduction of nitrate-sensitive areas to protect selected groundwater sources and the habitat scheme to improve a range of habitats. We also encouraged organic production through the organic aid scheme.
In opposition, we are developing the policies that we operated in government. We have been consulting a wide range of interested parties throughout the country. In our on-going listening to Britain campaign, the environment has emerged as one of the key issues, especially among members of the younger generation. The protection of the environment will be a central part of the next Conservative Government, as it was in the previous Conservative Government. However, the protection of wildlife should not have to wait until the next general election to receive the attention that it deserves. It is up to this Government to take forward the work that they inherited and implement solutions to the many problems that clearly still exist.
The Labour party's general election manifesto contained a commitment to
ensure greater protection for wildlife".


In September 1998, the DETR and the Welsh Office published a consultation document entitled, "Sites of special scientific interest: better protection and management", which proposes a number of changes to the existing legislation and guidance about SSSIs. Those modifications to the current framework promise to assist the enforcement of SSSIs, and that is to be welcomed. However, I urge the Minister to reconsider and pay careful attention to the responses to the consultation process and to be bolder than the document suggests the Government might be. They have a golden opportunity to seize the moment and draw up comprehensive legislation, particularly on SSSIs, to provide for extra protection and enforcement of those valuable sites.

Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government should give better protection to the site of Rettendon Shaw, which is in or near his constituency? I understand that a six-lane highway that is being built from Chelmsford to Southend will go through that site of special scientific interest.

Mr. Burns: I suspected that at some time, and probably on the Liberal Democrat Benches, a note of discord and a point of sheer party politics would be raised. First, the site is not in my constituency, although it is close by. Secondly, I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that question, he should address it not to me but to the leader of Chelmsford borough council, which, he will be aware, is controlled by the Liberal Democrat party. The leader of the council has lobbied as hard as anyone for that badly needed road to be built because the existing road is an accident black spot of unacceptable proportions. Many families have members who have been injured or, sadly, killed on that stretch of road and they desperately want the new road to be built. I suspect that they would not be terribly amused to hear a Liberal Democrat Member trying, because of a local election campaign, to score cheap party political points in what should be an intelligent debate on wildlife.

Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: No, I will not give way again because the hon. Gentleman may try to make another petty party political point and that would waste the time of hon. Members who are trying to have an intelligent debate on the environment.
We all want a new wildlife Bill. I caution the Government against trying to introduce a Christmas tree-type Bill, because I believe that it will detract from the importance of the wildlife aspect and probably—judging by experience in the House in the past few years—introduce a degree of controversy and division that will not exist for a straightforward wildlife Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on spending his parliamentary time trying to obtain this important debate. He has shown an interest in the subject since he came to this place, and it is to his credit that he has chosen to obtain considerable parliamentary time to devote to this important issue.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government also take very seriously the preservation of wildlife in the United Kingdom. I therefore welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to emphasise the high profile that nature conservation now rightly receives, in line with the Labour party's manifesto commitment to afford greater protection to wildlife in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom is fortunate in the diversity of its wildlife—especially so when one considers the intensity of human occupation that these islands have been subjected to, particularly for the past 200 years. It is also fortunate in the depth to which that wildlife has been recorded and studied, and in the scale of interest that the general public take in the subject of conservation. No other country has wildlife bodies that are as well supported and have as many members. It is therefore not surprising that there is such a strength of feeling that politicians must do all that they can to conserve and sustain our wildlife assets. The Government acknowledge that strength of feeling and are responding to it today, via this debate.
The debate has focused in large part on the protection of sites of special scientific interest, and Labour Members understand that emphasis. We do need to pay particular attention to the conservation of those most important sites, which constitute some of our most precious areas for wildlife, harbouring rare and endangered species and providing the habitats where they can flourish.
For that reason, the Government have given priority to drawing up proposals that, we believe, would provide for better protection and management of those sites of special scientific interest—or SSSIs, as they are commonly known. Those are the 4,000 or so sites that constitute the best areas for nature conservation, and which have been designated by English Nature as representative of the full suite of nationally important species and habitats.
Those sites may be special, but I emphasise the degree to which SSSIs lie within the grain of the countryside. Most are in private hands and many have a long tradition of human use—human use which has often been a major contributor to creating the special interest that has caused the designation.
Many SSSIs are well managed and in good condition, and their owners and managers enjoy a constructive relationship with the conservation agencies. However, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and one or two other hon. Members have pointed out, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), too many of those special sites suffer damage, and in too many cases they are not in good health at all. English Nature has said, following assessment of the condition of interest features on many sites in 1997-98, that more than 55 per cent. of all units on SSSIs were meeting their conservation objectives. However, in a quarter of units there are features in unfavourable condition, and the condition in one tenth is becoming even worse.
The main reason for the decline appears to be the lack of appropriate management. In England, English Nature aims to increase the proportion of sites that are positively managed for conservation and to reduce the proportion that are in an unfavourable condition. We recognise that more needs to be done to encourage the process and to provide the best framework within which it can operate.


For those reasons, last September we published a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper on SSSIs, containing significant proposals to help deliver real improvements in the immediate future.
Our proposals covered a range of options. We believe that better protection and management can be secured by a mixture of policy, administrative, financial and legal changes.
We propose the following policy changes. We propose to make it clear that all SSSIs are of national importance, and that some of them—perhaps up to half, by area—are recognised as being of international importance. We propose to clarify planning guidance so as to reflect the national importance of SSSIs, with a strong presumption against development that would significantly affect any SSSI—a test already introduced, in relation to trunk roads, by the Government's transport White Paper.
Administratively, we propose to demonstrate the Government's commitment to better protection and management by giving effect to a duty on Government Departments holding SSSI land to ensure that those sites are managed in the conservation interest. We shall encourage English Nature to develop further the range of partnerships with owners and occupiers of sites, including the voluntary conservation organisations, and to be more proactive by involving the local community in decisions that affect them and by taking enforcement action against those who deliberately damage sites. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall and by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark).
Regarding finances, we have already provided additional resources to English Nature to improve the condition of sites, but we also propose amending the financial guidelines on management agreements, so as to move further from compensating managers for not damaging sites and towards paying for positive management.
We believe that we can make progress in that regard very quickly but, last but by no means least in the package, we acknowledge the need to legislate in several key areas. For instance, we have proposed new powers for the agencies, the most significant of which will allow them, for the first time, to refuse consent for damaging operations. There would be a right of appeal, but an entitlement to compensation in very limited circumstances only.
The consultation paper also considers and seeks further views on the powers that the agencies might be given to address further key areas—in particular, neglect and lack of management and third-party damage, where greater powers and better enforcement are especially necessary.
We have proposed increased penalties for damage to SSSIs and increased powers to require restoration. The agencies should also have additional powers of entry to land, and more flexible powers to purchase SSSI land compulsorily, although we envisage that both those types of power would need to be used in very exceptional circumstances only.
Finally, we have said that we would consider policy developments in other areas to ensure that those deliver conservation benefits. To take a recent example, which

was mentioned by several hon. Members on both sides of the House, the package of environmental measures that water companies must include in their business plans specifically covers schemes that address problems associated with water abstraction at more than 50 SSSIs in England and in Wales.
It may be helpful if I reconfirm the philosophy that underpins our proposals for those special sites. First, we want to build on rather than displace the constructive relationships already established with thousands of owners and occupiers of SSSIs. We need a variety of partnerships with owners and occupiers, with local communities, with voluntary conservation organisations—and with Government Departments, some of whom are major land holders with SSSIs and are custodians of our wildlife heritage. The Government recognise and accept the responsibilities that that places on us, and we will help and encourage others who similarly accept their responsibilities for the nation's wildlife.
We realise that there is a need for further legislation to underpin partnerships and provide better means of addressing problems. To that end, we have proposed significant new powers for the conservation agencies. Deliberate damage, however, is rare: what we need to deal with is neglect, along with unsympathetic management. Legislation alone will not solve all the problems. We shall look to a range of options that will deliver key objectives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, the overall outcome of recent negotiations on reform of the common agriculture policy represents a further step—a small step—in the right direction, and we have worked hard to ensure that there will be potential benefits for the environment and for wildlife.
My officials are currently analysing detailed responses to the consultation paper, which demonstrate a wide range of interest in the issues and present a variety of alternative suggestions. We shall consider all those suggestions carefully before developing final proposals. I hope shortly to be able to announce preliminary conclusions, but we have already demonstrated our commitment to action through the increased resources that we have given English Nature. During the current year, English Nature will receive an extra £6.14 million, a significant proportion of which will go towards supporting the management of SSSIs. We shall look to English Nature to demonstrate that it can deliver immediate improvements.
In emphasising the protection of SSSIs to such an extent, we are also aware of the importance of such sites as a foundation for many of our international wildlife objectives. SSSIs underpin such obligations, providing the main domestic mechanisms with which we can deliver. Primary among those obligations are our obligations under the European Union's nature conservation directives. We continue to make good progress in implementing Natura 2000, the network of special sites that will represent the finest nature conservation sites at a European level. The United Kingdom has now classified 197 sites as special protection areas because of their ornithological interest under the birds directive, and has submitted 333 sites as candidates for special area of conservation status to the European Commission under the habitats directive, giving recognition and enhanced protection to the cream of our nature conservation heritage.
The United Kingdom is committed to full implementation of the requirements of the habitats directive. Our SAC list was selected by means of a rigorous and iterative scientific process, which applied the directive's criteria consistently across the UK. There has been full consultation on all the proposals, which, in a number of cases, incorporate changes made in the light of comments from the voluntary consultation movement and other consultees. I acknowledge that there have been criticisms of our list, but they are based on unscientific comparisons and misunderstandings of the directive's requirements.
SSSIs are also the foundation for other international obligations. I especially wish to mention the progress that we have made in delivering our commitment to the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance. The convention is concerned not just with the listing of sites because of their ornithological, botanical or hydrological significance, but with the wise use of all wetlands, and with effective programmes of education and public awareness that will communicate the value of wetlands and secure commitment to their conservation and sustainable use. The publication in 1998 of a Ramsar strategic plan for the UK, with appropriate targets for action, has underlined our commitments under the convention, and we expect to play a full part in the seventh conference of the parties in Costa Rica next month.
I must also stress the Government's commitment to our other international wildlife targets. I refer particularly to the Berne convention on the conservation of European wildlife and habitats and to the Bonn convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, with its daughter agreements relating to cetaceans, bats and water birds. In emphasising our proposals to protect and manage special sites better, however, we should not overlook the importance of the context of wider policies. Protection of special sites needs to be complemented by action to protect species.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 affords protection to all native birds, to animals listed in schedule 5 and to plants listed in schedule 8. The Act also requires the protection given to native animals and plants to be reviewed at least every five years. In April 1998, the most recent such review resulted in protection for an additional 17 plant species and 11 animal species. Although such reviews must be conducted at least every five years, the Department and its scientific advisers are duty bound by the Act to monitor the conservation status of threatened species and, where necessary, to consider legislative protection if it believes that that will deal with a particular threat to the species. It is as a result of that process that I recently signed an order to control the release of sika deer hybrids to protect native red deer.
We are, however, increasingly aware of concern about the effectiveness of relying on the listing of species in schedules to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to protect animals and plants. As a result of the concerns that have been raised, the joint nature conservation committee was asked to undertake a review of the rationale and effectiveness of listing species in all the schedules to part I of the Act, and we shall shortly be considering the outcome of that review.
Where necessary, we shall also take appropriate steps to address specific concerns about the conservation of species. Lead poisoning in water fowl has been a worry for some time, and shooting, conservation and landowning

organisations have been working with the Government to find a solution. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced a consultation exercise on the detail of proposed legislation to restrict the use of lead shot over wetlands. Comments on the proposals will be taken into account in the finalising of the legislation, which is intended to come into force in England and Wales by the start of the shooting season on 1 September 1999.
We are keen that there should be robust means of enforcing wildlife protection legislation. About two years ago, the partnership for action against wildlife crime submitted to Ministers a package of recommendations to strengthen the enforcement of the legislation. The Government are sympathetic to most of those recommendations, which include proposals for the provision of a clear power for police officers or the Department's wildlife inspectors to require tissue samples to be made available for DNA testing purposes, the introduction of custodial sentences for certain offences under part I of the 1981 Act, the rationalisation of search-warrant and time-limit provisions under the same Act, limited new powers of entry for the Department's wildlife inspectors and a new offence of recklessly disturbing a nest site or a place of rest or shelter. I attach priority to those measures, and consider that they should be given legislative force as soon as possible.
I have mentioned a number of specific initiatives that the Government are taking to protect our wildlife better. Let me now take a minute to say something about the overarching framework within which those initiatives need to be placed: the strategy provided by the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan. The plan provides the framework within which, in considering the preservation of wildlife in the UK, we must go beyond the protection of species and habitats. In that wider context, the Government's biodiversity politics are an important component in a suite of measures aimed not just at conserving wildlife, but at fostering sustainable development. Biodiversity is one test, a key test, of whether we are moving towards a society that operates sustainably.
We have built on the structures that were bequeathed to us when we came to office—notably the UK biodiversity group, chaired by an official from my Department, but also with members of all key sectors. We have developed UK biodiversity work, not least by providing additional resources for it, and we have made good progress in involving people from outside the nature conservation world in biodiversity work.
I have not dealt with a number of relevant issues, but I have noted all the questions asked by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, as well as those asked by my hon. Friends. I promise that I shall write to them in due course—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next debate.

Lewisham Rail Stations (Disabled Access)

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is of enormous concern to my constituents and to those of other hon. Members with constituencies along the routes operated by the railway company, Connex.
In south London, there is some of the oldest railway infrastructure in the country. We have Victorian and Edwardian stations where there are high footbridges over the track, enabling people to get from one side to the other. Of course, they can do that only if they are able-bodied. When those structures were built, no consideration was given to access for those who might be less able or disabled.
The Royal National Institute for Deaf People spotted the title of today's debate and wrote to me, thinking that I would speak about improved access. I wish I were. The purpose of the debate is not to call for much-needed improved access, but to draw the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the Minister to the action of Connex in taking away existing access for travellers with disabilities.
The matter was first raised with me in a series of letters from my constituents, complaining about the closure of side and rear entrances. That might seem a trivial issue, but it has had serious effects on the travelling public in my constituency, and has profound implications for the railway regulation and franchising authorities. It also provides the clearest evidence of institutional discrimination against people with disabilities.
In early February, I received the first letters about the closure of the entrances to the level platforms at Catford Bridge station. Susan Ford wrote to me in the following terms:
On Monday 8 February I and a few hundred other passengers who travel from Catford Bridge railway station each day, were suddenly confronted with the locking of the gate which is the entrance to platform 1 (London bound). We had no prior warning".
The letter continues:
Apart from the extreme inconvenience this has caused to passengers … it has now become an absolute no-go travelling area for the disabled, parents with babies in buggies and those carrying heavy bags or cases. There is no way of reaching platform I without negotiating at least two flights of stairs.
Mrs. Ford went on to say:
There is of course the safety of passengers in general, particularly women. If a passenger felt compromised there was an alternative route of escape, but now on the side of the platform, where there is unlikely to be any passers-by … they have effectively locked in a potential victim.
That letter was followed by one from J. T. Jefferies to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who I am glad to see is in his seat, and who, I know, supports me in everything that I shall say on the matter today. Mr. Jefferies wrote of his experiences at Catford Bridge station:
People approaching the station past the old booking office have to walk all down one side of the station, up a flight of stairs to the street, along the pavement, past the 'down' side platform, down a side street and across a car park to the 'down' side ticket office, along the 'down' side platform, up the footbridge stairs, across the bridge, down the stairs to the `up' platform and along the platform to wherever they join the train.

Of course, people travelling in the opposite direction must reverse all those movements.

Mr. Tom Brake: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that I have a similar problem in my constituency at Wallington station, where passengers have to go down a deep underpass because Connex South Central has chosen to lock one of the entrances to the station. I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that that affects not only people with disabilities, but every passenger who travels by Connex South Central.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I hope has been heard.
The letters from which I quoted were soon followed by one from Ruby Lescott, who wrote:
Connex has simply locked out anyone with a disability. It also makes waiting on the 'up' platform at the non-peak times much more worrying as there is now only one way out of the station
— and that is on to the track.
There are clearly great issues of security at stake. Naturally, I contacted Connex and sent copies of the letters. I expected a reply stating that the closures were a temporary measure, soon to be revised, and at least an apology, but none was forthcoming. The chief operating officer, Mr. Geoffrey Harrison-Mee, wrote ominously:

"Side and rear entrances at a number of locations have been closed to help us control and monitor access to stations… Where we have closed side and rear entrances, we have found that vandalism and graffiti have been markedly reduced, and by concentrating access at main entrances we have been able to tackle ticketless travel which has helped us provide a more secure travelling environment. These are issues I know your constituents feel strongly about."

Ms Bridget Prentice: As my hon. Friend knows, Hither Green station in my constituency has recently received a safety award, presented by the Minister. It is a Connex South Eastern station with entirely open access. There is no vandalism there now, so the idea that closures are a way of making stations more secure clearly does not marry up with what Connex South Eastern is doing at other stations.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is right. Many of my constituents and hers have raised the matter with the operating company.
Mr. Harrison-Mee went on to state in his letter:
Where customers have special needs, we will do our best to help by opening gates, and special assistance can be arranged by contacting our Customer Services team".
I was offered a meeting, but no attempt was made to answer constituents' claims that measures at Catford Bridge made for greater danger, not security. However, there was an assurance that gates could be opened, and we could contact customer services—more of that in a moment.
Meanwhile, M. Coulston wrote to me about Lewisham station and the evening closure of the platform 4 exit, which leads to the main residential area and Tesco, which stays open till midnight. He pointed out not only the inconvenience, but the need for
anyone elderly or disabled, or anyone with children or shopping, to walk several hundred yards further than they used to


and to negotiate two staircases. He also pointed out that the low fence next to the locked gate was easily negotiated by anyone able-bodied, including "muggers and vandals".
Again I wrote to Mr. Harrison-Mee, who replied in similar vein to his previous letter. However, this time he acknowledged the specific complaint and stated:
I have noted Mr. Coulston's concerns about this gate being closed, and I hope that he will now understand why we have taken this course of action.
I am sure that he did not, and neither did I.
Clearly, neither my constituents nor I were being listened to. I decided to follow up the offer of a meeting and made contact with Connex customer services. The staff at customer services were extremely helpful, but they said that they needed 48 hours' notice, as frequently the only staff member on a station was the person in the ticket office selling the tickets, who could not leave. Therefore customer services would have to arrange for someone else to go to a station to unlock the gates for a disabled person.
I asked about shorter notice. I was told that that could be arranged, but that certain people took advantage and claimed that there was an emergency every time. I asked about a commuter who goes to work every morning and comes back every evening. I was told that that would have to be taken up with the relevant commercial manager.
At one level, that is hilarious, but it represents the most profound discrimination against people with disabilities—not by the individuals who work for customer services, I am sure, but by the institution. The problem affects not only wheelchair users, but anyone who is less able to walk, all families with babies and buggies, and people who have heavy luggage, as they may well do at a railway station. For those who could not negotiate stairs in any circumstances, Connex's policy meant a profound restriction of their freedom to travel, whether for pleasure or to earn a living. Disabled people were offered a second-class service.
Scope, Britain's largest disability charity, said as much and took up the cause. The local newspapers—the South London Press, The Mercury and the News Shopper—all championed the passengers, as did BBC Radio 4's hard-hitting programme "You and Yours", but still Connex did not budge.
Then I received letters about Ladywell, which is my local station. It serves the district hospital and is adjacent to a school for children with special needs. It has a particularly high footbridge spanning the tracks. In the most bizarre exercise to date, Connex locked the side gates when the station was staffed—by one person, who could not open the gates because he was serving tickets—but unlocked them, giving free access to vandals, when the ticket office staff left in the early evening. Sara Peat wrote to me in exasperation, saying that she used the station every day, but suffered from a painful arthritic condition that made it dangerous and difficult for her to use the stairs. June Broom summed the situation up when she wrote:
Disabled people can no longer use the station. The elderly now find it difficult. Watergate special school … can no longer go on school outings by train. … The direct route to Lewisham Hospital is no longer possible.
I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister and Scope wrote formally to Connex, arguing that its policy was a possible breach of its licence and asking for a review.
Throughout the sorry saga, Connex maintained that the closures were in the interests of passengers—enhancing security, reducing vandalism and raising revenue. Those are laudable objectives that we all support. Of course we want our railway to be a success, but no railway operator should justify buying station security on the backs of disabled people. Everything that Connex did discouraged and prevented people from travelling, and soured relations between staff and customers.
When I finally organised a site meeting of my constituents and Connex representatives to allow people to explain how they were affected at Ladywell station, it became clear that the people running the railway had not thought through the consequences of their strategy of, as they put it,
reclaiming the railway from the vandals.
The situation continued from the beginning of February until the middle of March. In the last week of March, I was finally told that the stations in my area would have their side and rear accesses reopened and left open for 24 hours a day while a review was being carried out.
That may seem like a great success. It is, but the situation should never have arisen. More importantly, my constituent Sandra den Hertog was told in a recent letter that consideration was being given to individual needs and that there was an on-going review. I cannot be confident that the recent reversal of policy will hold. That is why I have raised this important debate.
I want to ensure action. I also want lessons to be learned and questions to be answered. Who made the decision? Who left it to local station staff to implement a policy of shutting out their customers? In the briefing for today's debate, which no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister has seen, Connex says that it consulted about the changes by advertising the closures two weeks in advance. That is no consultation. The company even acknowledges that it did not happen at every station. It says that it has in place
an effective policy for assisting people with disabilities to travel.
That is patently not true. Another constituent has written at length about what happens when people try to get help from customer services. The company says that it is proud of the fact that 25 per cent. of customers with mobility problems use its customer services. I am concerned that 75 per cent. do not and I wonder why. How could the situation have arisen?
Connex's disabled people's protection policy makes a commitment to improve
ease of access and egress from station platforms and trains.
Compliance with the DPPP is a requirement of Connex's operator's licence. Its action is a clear breach of the licence. I am delighted that the accesses have been reopened, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that the situation is unacceptable, that there must be no repeats and that if there are any remaining closures—I am not aware of any; I think that 10 stations had accesses reopened—they must be reopened immediately. My hon. Friend must tell us that steps will be taken to ensure that the situation does not recur and to ensure proper compliance with DPPPs. I very much hope that he is already discussing with railway operators the need for them to be prepared to meet the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which will come into effect for the railways in October this year.
I hope that Connex has learned a hard lesson and I hope that other railway companies will take note. I have been told today that South West Trains may be in the process of instituting such a policy or may have already adopted one. I hope that my hon. Friend will make inquiries into such behaviour. There must be no repetition. It must be made clear that people with disabilities—profound and permanent or less severe and temporary—and those of us who are burdened in our normal way of life must have equal access to our public services, including our railways. Nothing less than that will satisfy me, my hon. Friends who are here today and my constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make that clear to our local train operating companies and to all the others, and that there will be a clear improvement.
Despite my criticisms of Connex, my hon. Friends and I will be more than willing to work with the company to ensure greater security for our stations—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) did at Hither Green—less evasion of fares and a reduction in vandalism. However, that must be done by other means. We shall be happy to explore all those issues with the company, as well as better access for people with disabilities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss access for disabled people to railways. She has a fine record in this place. She was the Government spokesman on women and in opposition, she was a lead spokesman on transport and on London. She has always been at the forefront on issues relating to transport, London and the rights of the individual.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the restriction of access to stations in Lewisham. Her intervention has persuaded Connex that its action was precipitate and that it should reinstate the accesses where alterations caused unacceptable difficulties for passengers with disabilities. Connex is reviewing how it might pursue security enhancement of its stations without disadvantaging disabled people and other passengers with particular needs, such as mothers with child carriages or shopping bags.
The Rail Regulator's office is actively involved in reviewing the issues with Connex to ensure that the company's actions are consistent with its licence requirements to protect the interests of disabled people and with the statutory provisions that require the regulator's approval for the closure of stations or parts of stations.
I trust that that process will produce an outcome at Lewisham and other Connex stations that is satisfactory to my hon. Friend and her constituents, and that any further measures that Connex may propose to enhance security at Lewisham stations and more generally will be the subject of extensive consultation before decisions or actions are taken. Measures should be introduced in a meaningful way, rather than be a paper exercise, as my hon. Friend has described.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have stressed to the railway industry the importance that they place on listening to passengers and on responding to their needs. That includes, but is not exclusively about, passengers with disabilities.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London said at the rail summit on 25 February, between 12 per cent. and 14 per cent. of the population have some type of disability. Over the next 50 years, the proportion of older people in the population will increase from present levels of between 10 and 15 per cent. to between 20 and 30 per cent. The correlation between age and disability is well established; two thirds of disabled people are elderly. That substantial passengers' voice must be listened to by operators.
It is notable that improvements that are designed to help disabled and older people will almost invariably help the larger number of people who travel with small children, with baby buggies or who are laden with heavy suitcases or shopping. Accessibility improves patronage, as accessible buses have shown.
At the February rail summit, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made it clear that proposals from train operating companies for renegotiation of their franchises would be considered against criteria that included the track record of the franchisee, on which he would consult widely, including via rail users' consultative committees, individual users and local groups; and the extent to which the franchisee was prepared to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services.
Turning to security for rail users, I appreciate Connex's objective, but I repeat: I do not appreciate its style. Its objective in restricting access to stations in Lewisham and elsewhere in its south-eastern and south-central franchise areas is to improve security for passengers. That is in line with Government policy to reduce crime and the perception of crime on the railway, as elsewhere in society. Greater personal security will encourage use of the railway, which is one of the Government's key transport objectives.
Despite the low level of recorded crime on trains and at railway stations, fear of crime has a real impact on many people's lives. That is particularly true for women and older people. Fear of crime contributes to people being deterred from using public transport, particularly at night. It means that those people who can afford it travel by car, with all the resulting effects on congestion and pollution, and that those who cannot afford it are prevented from travelling.
Among other initiatives, the Government have developed, with a national steering group that includes rail organisations, passenger groups, British Transport police, Crime Concern and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the secure stations scheme—an accreditation scheme that was launched in 1998 to give public recognition to stations that work to create a safe environment for passengers and staff.
To gain accreditation, operators of individual stations must work with the British Transport police and other local partners to implement a range of security measures. Those must cover four main areas. The first is the design of the station, which must conform to standards that are judged by British Transport police to prevent and reduce crime, and to improve passenger perceptions. The second


is management of the stations. Management must take steps to prevent crime, to respond to incidents and to communicate effectively with passengers.
The third area is managing crime. Statistics of crime must be maintained and show, over 12 months before accreditation is considered, that crime is being controlled. The fourth area is passenger perceptions. Passengers must be surveyed to establish that they feel secure in using the station. The national rail survey that was announced at the February rail summit will include questions on perceptions of security.
Many train operating companies have already prioritised improving security by installing closed circuit television and help points, improving lighting and introducing rapid response arrangements. A secure station accreditation will prove to passengers that their local station is taking their security seriously.
A number of stations throughout the country have been accredited under the scheme and it is hoped that many more will become accredited. Hither Green, which Connex South Eastern operates in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), is one of those currently accredited; the London termini of Victoria and King's Cross have also been accredited.
The Government have focused on railway stations because that is what passengers want. Research by Crime Concern on behalf of my Department revealed that the part of the journey that is spent on the vehicle is perceived as more secure than the beginning and end of the journey. Waiting at railway stations was a particular concern for many passengers; both men and women were less concerned about waiting at bus stops.
Research shows that, although each individual journey has a number of constituent parts, a passenger perceives the journey as a whole and the worst part of the journey colours the experience of the whole. Therefore, it is essential that transport operators, local authorities and other interested groups work together to improve passenger perceptions of the whole journey. If passengers feel unsafe waiting at the bus stop, or walking to and from the station, they may be deterred from using that mode of public transport at all.
The objectives, instructions and guidance that the Government issued to the franchising director in November 1997—a copy is in the Library—included a requirement for him to
promote the personal security of passengers travelling by rail".
Since franchises were awarded, the franchising director has taken the opportunities for renegotiation that have arisen—when there has been a proposed change of control

of a train operating company, or a breach of the franchise—to obtain further commitments to security improvements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford will be interested to learn, companies involved to date include Thames Trains, First North Western, Chiltern Railways and LTS Rail.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Accessible public transport, within the framework of our integrated transport policy, is fundamental to delivering that commitment.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 placed duties on those providing goods, facilities or services to the public and those selling, letting or managing premises. Since 2 December 1996, it has been unlawful for service providers, landlords and others to treat disabled people less favourably for a reason related to their disability. For service providers, the Act included further stages for "later rights" to be met where reasonable to enable use by disabled people.
From October 1999, service providers have to make "reasonable adjustments" for disabled people, such as providing extra help, or making changes to the way in which they provide their services. From 2004, it is intended that service providers will have to make "reasonable adjustments" to the physical features of their premises to overcome physical barriers to access. That could include, for example, installing a ramp to enable wheelchair users to gain access that was previously available only by steps.
Railtrack and train operating companies were informed about those requirements by my Department and the Department for Education and Employment at the end of last year. The consultation included details of proposals for regulations and a new code of practice by the National Disability Council. The regulations and draft code will soon be laid before Parliament.
There are several other areas in which action has been, or is about to be taken by the Government. Under the Disability Discrimination Act, as of 1 January this year, all new classes of rail vehicles that come into service have to comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998. Those include detailed specifications for wheelchair access, as well as requirements for clear colour contrast, for audible and visual announcements and for a range of other features to help people—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now turn to the next debate.

Housing (Gloucestershire)

1 pm

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to be able to introduce today's debate on housing projections for Gloucestershire, a subject that has occupied much of my time since I was elected almost two years ago. My postbag contains many letters from constituents who are concerned about protecting not only the villages and the areas where they live, but the entire county. They are not NIMBYs, but are genuinely concerned about ensuring that we pass on to our children at least some, and preferably most, of the beautiful countryside that we have inherited. We had the privilege of inheriting the countryside and we have no right to deny future generations such enjoyment and quality of life.
Let me make it clear at the outset that, in line with most Adjournment debates, I do not intend to make today's debate party political. I am not interested in scoring political points by arguing about which party wishes to build fewest houses or can boast the largest area of green belt. However, I shall first highlight some of the contradictions between the policies espoused by the Government and their actions and those of their inspector in respect of Gloucestershire. Secondly, I shall describe the nonsensical process that still occupies Gloucestershire county council and the inspector in attempting to agree a structure plan; and thirdly, 1 shall describe the effect that building a large number of houses in Gloucestershire will have on the environment and the countryside there.
I shall start with the contradictions. On 3 February this year, the Government tabled an amendment to a motion in the House. It was in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Government emphasised their determination to protect the countryside and spoke of
the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including Green Belts".
Yet in Gloucestershire, the Government inspector, in his examination-in-public report on the county's structure plan, actually promoted the idea of building in the green belt.
The Government amendment also spoke of
the Government's commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside".
It is poor English, I know, but even worse, the same Government inspector promoted the idea of a new settlement in the open countryside that the Government said they wanted to protect.
Paragraph 63 of the Government's draft planning policy guidance, PPG3, states:
The Government is not against new settlements".
So on the one hand, the Government boast of their commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside, yet on the other, they say that they are not against new settlements. Where do the Government think that those new settlements will be built if not in the open countryside? Where does the Government inspector think that the proposed new settlement in my constituency in Gloucestershire will be built if not in the open countryside?
Furthermore, in the Government amendment and in the new PPG3, the Government spoke of promoting development in existing towns and cities and building

60 per cent. of future houses on brown-field land, but what happens in areas with very little brown-field land such as Gloucestershire? Do the Government then approve building on green-belt land, on green fields and in the open countryside? What are the Government's policies in those cases? I would suggest that more clarification is needed. So too is a reappraisal by the Government inspector following his EIP report in Gloucestershire.
Gloucestershire county council's structure plan proposed building 50,000 houses by 2011. That meant 9,100 new houses in my Tewkesbury constituency. The Government inspector considered the structure plan and then—some would say led by developers—proposed 55,000 houses for the county. Due to his muddled thinking, that would mean 12,000 extra houses in Tewkesbury. How can that increase be justified? How can it be right when the area has so few brown-field sites? In writing his report, was the inspector—and the Government office for the south-west—not aware of the imminent publication of the revised household projections, which suggested that the south-west will require 49,000 fewer houses than was originally predicted? If so, why did he then propose 5,000 more houses for Gloucestershire?
The county wanted 50,000 houses, the inspector wanted 55,000 and the county council is considering the matter further. It has already put 100 modifications to the structure plan to public consultation and has suggested to the public that 53,000 is the right figure. I heard this morning that that figure is being amended to 50,000. What a complete farce. The problem is that despite the consultations, the people who live in Gloucestershire—the electorate—actually have a very limited say on the matter because the inspector and the Secretary of State have the power to overturn the decisions made by the democratically elected councillors and to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people who live in the area.
In other words, there is a gaping democratic deficit in the whole planning process. In addition, a great deal of taxpayers' money has been wasted in the course of the process in Gloucestershire—and it is nowhere near finished.
I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State use his powers wisely. If he did, he would properly educate his inspectors before sending them out into the country and allowing them to contradict the very policies that the Government are proposing. He would explain the meaning of sustainable development to his inspectors and he would ensure that a vast amount of taxpayers' money was not wasted on smokescreen planning processes. I would also suggest that the Secretary of State carefully consider the actual effect of his target of 60 per cent. of new housing being built on brown-field land. I appreciate that he has increased the figure from 50 per cent. and I applaud that, but the new target is of little comfort to the people of Gloucestershire, who will probably have to endure about 90 per cent. of new building on green-field sites, leaving only about 10 per cent. to be built on brown-field land. In Tewkesbury, probably 100 per cent. of new building will have to be on green-field sites. The Minister shakes his head, but I cannot imagine where houses will be built in Tewkesbury if it is not on green-field sites.
In other words, it is all well and good setting a national target of 60 per cent., but I would suggest that a target should be set for each county, thereby adding meaning and substance to what is at present mere philosophy. Again, PPG3 suggests that local areas should have such a target, but what does the Minister intend to do in areas which have very little brown-field land available, such as Gloucestershire? Will he allow them to build fewer houses? Again, the action should match the rhetoric.
The position in Gloucestershire needs reviewing for a number of reasons, including the shortage of brown-field sites in the county, the attractive countryside, the building that has already taken place, the fact that much of my constituency sits on a flood plain. There are many other reasons, not least the recently published household projection figures. For all those reasons, the inspector, or perhaps the Secretary of State, should be reducing the number of houses required for Gloucestershire, not increasing it.
I understand that only this morning, the county council proposed to reject the EIP figures and stick to the original 50,000 houses, as in its structure plan. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will take no action against the council because if he does, he will be acting against the people of Gloucestershire. That would fly in the face of democracy and common sense, and would further contradict the Government's stated policy of wanting to protect the countryside.
A high housing figure for Gloucestershire would put pressure on the borough councils to build houses in the most inappropriate places. In Tewkesbury, where the recently published local plan was based on a lower housing figure, the council proposed building houses in an historic town which already struggles with too much traffic and cannot take any more cars on its small lanes, in a village where permission was once refused because the land was deemed to be unsuitable, on hundreds of people's allotments, in two separate villages where such building threatens coalescence and, again, on green-field sites and in the open countryside.
People say, "Of course we need houses"—but we do not know how many. Already, the 4.4 million prediction is being shown to be too high, and who can tell whether the trends of recent years will continue? Couples may not continue to break up as frequently as they do now, and house sharing may become more commonplace than it is now. As the Secretary of State said, on 29 March, in a written answer to a parliamentary question,
Such trends can and do change".—[Official Report 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 471.]
I was born in a town in north-west England, and lived there for 33 years before moving to live in the countryside; so I feel that I understand the needs of both town and country. I feel also that I understand homelessness, as, before I was elected to the House, I ran a major project to help homeless women in London. However, homelessness has little to do with a shortage of houses—the issue is much more complicated than that. Therefore, even if we built too few houses, people would not become homeless because there were not enough houses.
Building millions of new houses creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which houses are built, house prices are therefore restrained and—hey, presto—people buy those houses. However, that does not mean that those houses

were needed initially. Therefore, I welcome another statement in the amendment that I mentioned earlier, saying that
the Government recognises the need to replace the previous predict and provide approach to the issue of household growth".
I genuinely welcome those words, and look forward to welcoming the action. I should unreservedly welcome such action if I were to witness it. So far, there has been no change in the approach—although the Secretary of State, in the written answer of 29 March, also said of the "predict and provide" process that "That policy is dead." It is not dead.
Even if higher housing requirements are justifiably predicted, they cannot necessarily be provided—and definitely not in every single area of the country—if we are to retain at least some of the countryside and avoid causing great damage to the environment. More houses means more damage to the environment. It means more cars and more car journeys, which further damage the environment.
A compromise available to the Government might be to encourage renovation of older properties. How many houses stand empty across the country? How many flats above shops stand empty which, if renovated, could help to regenerate towns and cities? But what encouragement is given to renovating existing properties when the value added tax rate on such renovation work is 17.5 per cent., whereas no VAT is chargeable on new houses built on green-field sites? The Government should correct that perverse situation by removing VAT from renovation work, and by charging VAT at the top rate on new build and green-field land.
We should not neglect the countryside and the environment in the clamour to build new houses, especially when they cannot be shown to be needed. Wanting to protect the countryside and to preserve green fields, hills, dales, farm land and beauty is not mere romanticism, as such an environment is one of the things that makes life worth living. We cannot continue taking land for building, for to do so would be to turn the United Kingdom into an undesirable urban sprawl, with the countryside being lost for ever to current and future generations.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on the cogent way in which he has dealt with a difficult subject, and on the timing of his debate. The decisions that the Secretary of State will make on housing projections—how many houses will be built between now and 2016—in Gloucestershire will affect all the constituencies there, but particularly my hon. Friend's constituency, and my own constituency, approximately 85 per cent. of which is designated, in one way or another, for planning purposes, and which has the highest percentage of housing stock designated as listed buildings.
In a very short speech, my real message to the Minister is that we must get the numbers right. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury should be congratulated on the work that he has done to try to ensure that the number of new houses is set at 50,000 and no more, as that would be the appropriate number if the national average were followed. As a result of the examination in public,


the inspector decided that Gloucestershire should have a higher number of new houses, at 1.03 per cent., than the national average, which is set at 1.01 per cent.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, I am very keen to prevent excessive building in rural areas. The manifesto of each of the three parties states that each party wishes to protect the environment. I believe that the sensible place to build houses is near to people's work, as doing so would avoid excessive use of motor cars, with all the environmental benefits that that brings. Some of the rural areas designated for new houses by Gloucestershire county council, after the Government's imposition of an excessive number of houses, are totally inappropriate for large-scale new settlements.
In the previous Parliament, the Minister and I both served on the Environment Select Committee. Therefore, he will know as well as I do that we are not using existing housing stock as well as we should, and that much of the housing survey shows that our existing housing stock could be better maintained. The proposal on VAT made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is worth considering.
I also agree with my hon. Friend that we should do more to encourage people to live above shops. In many of our towns and cities, whole streets have hardly anyone living above shops. More should be done to ensure security of tenure, and council tax should be used to encourage larger shop owners and retail chains to persuade people to live above shops.
I agree with my hon. Friend also that we should not unnecessarily cover in houses our precious rural areas, particularly the green belt. Once those areas have been covered with houses, there will be no turning back. We should adopt a regional realism in housing policy. Why should Gloucestershire have to build houses in numbers above the national average? Why should it have to build above the south-western regional average? Why should those houses be imposed on Gloucestershire?
For the whole of the 18 years in which Conservative Members were in government, we rigorously protected the green belt and the rural countryside. I hope that the Government will do the same, in the interests of future generations.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing this debate, on a subject to which I know that he attaches great importance. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has also contributed to the debate. I tell him that, if he wants to pursue the matter in the same non-partisan spirit as that shown by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, it is not terribly helpful to suggest that the Government are imposing figures on Gloucestershire, and that the previous Government did not do so. The reality is that the figures being debated were developed using a system that operated under the previous Government and have been inherited by the current Government. We are seeking to change the procedures, as I shall describe shortly. However, it is a travesty to pretend that the Government are trying impose something that the previous Government were not.
I tell the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that household growth is a difficult issue facing society. Some people would like to believe that such growth can be wished away and that no new houses have to be built. However, I think that he realises that that is not realistic. He is concerned with provision of people's housing needs, and appreciates that it is important that society should try to provide appropriately, although in a manner that does not damage the countryside. We have to consider estimates of prospective need for housing and to try to do the best that we can—recognising that household projections cannot be an absolutely accurate science, but that it is necessary to make the best possible estimates.
It may be useful to the House if I start by explaining how household projections are arrived at, and how they are translated into development plans. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will be aware, in announcing recently the latest household projection figures, the Secretary of State recognised that household growth may be slowing. In particular, the projections show that the number of new households projected to form in England over the 25 years between 1996 and 2021 is about 3.8 million, compared with the 4.4 million projected for the previous 25-year period, which will end in 2016.
The 3.8 million figure is derived principally by projecting previous patterns of population change and household formation, and should not be seen as a forecast or estimate. It is based entirely on what might be expected to occur if previous trends continue. It is heavily dependent on the assumptions. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury pointed out, and as the Government are stressing, trends can and do change.
The suggestion from the latest figures is that the pace of household growth may be slowing down. Part of the underlying reason for that is that recent evidence has shown that cohabitation is increasing at a faster rate than expected, and there are also a smaller proportion of women who are widows or divorcees.
We must not think only in terms of numbers. We are keen to focus the debate on how we should plan for future homes in a sustainable way. The consultation paper, "Planning for the Communities of the Future"—which we published last year—set out the results of our analysis of the system that we inherited from the previous Administration for calculating and providing for the country's housing needs. The paper set out our strategy for promoting more sustainable patterns of development and encouraging urban renewal.
We are also seeking to ensure that, where development is needed outside, or adjacent to, urban areas, that must be sustainable and must be combined with an active approach towards the protection of the countryside. Those proposals represent a sustainable and comprehensive approach to meeting housing needs in the country well into the new millennium. They differ from the previous approach in that there is no longer adherence to the principle of "predict and provide". We are seeking to implement a principle of "plan, monitor and manage", recognising the need for planning and the need to monitor actual trends and to vary the arrangements according to experience.
We have also changed our approach to establishing the housing numbers by region. Our new draft planning policy guidance 11 on regional planning, which sets out our proposals for improving the preparation and content


of regional planning guidance, represents an important step in modernising the planning system and reflects our commitment to decentralised decision taking.
The new arrangements give greater responsibility to local authorities, through regional planning conferences, in preparing regional planning strategies, and should mean increased regional ownership of the policies and increased commitment to their delivery. Instead of the Government, the regional planning body will be responsible for preparing the draft regional strategy, including proposing the amount of additional housing needed in the plan period.
We have also recently announced household projections for each of the Government offices of the regions, and, again, those should not be regarded as forecasts or predictions. Other factors should equally be taken into account so that regional planning bodies should, against the background of need and capacity, take a realistic and responsible approach to planning future housing provision.
Of course we realise that similar information at sub-regional level will be useful as background for the regional planning process and the preparation of regional planning guidance, so we will be writing to the regional planning bodies to make relevant information available in a form consistent with that published as part of the last set of household projections in 1995. It takes longer to develop the figures sub-regionally, which is why they have not yet been published. As soon as we are satisfied that the figures are as accurate and appropriate as possible, we will publish them.
The new arrangements provide a more open and inclusive process for determining planning issues at the regional level. The new strategies, including the new housing figures, will be tested at public examinations by independent panels whose reports will be made public. The new procedure has been piloted in East Anglia, where a public examination was completed last month. The south-west regional planning guidance is still at draft stage, and is due for public examination early next year.
One of the key tasks of new-style regional planning guidance will be to provide guidance on the overall level of housing and its distribution within the region, making full use of previously developed land. In assessing the housing provision required for the 15 to 20-year period covered by the strategy, we expect the regional planning body to work with other regional stakeholders to establish the level of housing likely to be required to meet the region's housing needs.
In making the assessment, the Government's latest published household projections should be taken into account. Equally, urban capacity studies should be undertaken to explore the implications of changing policies and standards which would reduce the land take of new development while securing attractive residential environments. Against that background of need and capacity, the regional planning body should be able to take a realistic and responsible approach to future housing provision. It must be prepared to justify its views fully in public at the examination of the draft regional planning guidance. The structure plan and unitary development plan authorities will, of course, be party to the process.
Once the housing requirement has been established and confirmed by the Secretary of State, following the public examination, the presumption is that structure plans and

unitary plans should then focus on the broad distribution and the location of growth. It is the essence of the plan, monitor and manage approach that both the assessment of housing requirements and the distribution within the region should be kept under review. If there are signs of under-provision or over-provision, we expect both the regional planning guidance and development plans to be reviewed accordingly. We need to work together to ensure that the new approach is developed in as constructive a context as possible.
I shall deal now with the housing figures in the review of the Gloucestershire structure plan. Regional planning guidance figures were agreed by the authorities in the region in 1994. They showed that 53,000 extra homes were needed in the county between 1991 and 2011, based on 1989-based household projections. In reviewing the structure plan, the county council took a figure of 50,000 extra homes as its starting point. Of this total, about 9,100 were allocated to Tewkesbury.
The plan was subject to public scrutiny at an examination in public in September 1998. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury said that this was held by a Government inspector. I should stress that those holding the examination form an independent panel. They are drawn from the Government inspectorate, but they report to the county council. Their role is to assess the evidence submitted by all who contribute to the examination in public.
Officials from the Government office for the south-west, who attended the examination, pressed for greater account to be taken of the need to focus development on the urban areas, to promote recycling of land—more than was provided for previously—and higher densities to reduce land take and to ensure greater integration between housing, employment and transportation. After considering the representations, the panel recommended that the housing provision should be increased to 55,000.
The matter was then presented to the county council. I had understood—although the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has given me new evidence today—that the county council had proposed that the overall housing provision should revert to 53,000. If the council is now proposing another figure, clearly it will have to demonstrate sound evidence for reaching it; it would be inappropriate simply to pluck a figure out of thin air. I do not know the basis for that figure and will therefore say no more. However, the figures should be tested at examinations in public, and the county council should reach a considered view. The matter will come to the Secretary of State in due course and it would be inappropriate for me to say more.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his customary courtesy in giving way. His remarks form the thrust of what I am saying. Will the Minister reject what the county council is saying locally? He has referred to the broad-brush approach of the inspector, but the building of houses on the green belt and in the open countryside was promoted. That is why the report is contradictory and flawed.

Mr. Raynsford: I cannot comment on such details. However, a county council that has had a long time to consider the matter clearly must consider all the evidence


before it reaches a view. It would be surprising if—having come to the view a little while ago that it was to recommend 53,000—the council now, according to the hon. Gentleman, is suggesting 50,000. I am not sure what the basis for that is, and I cannot comment. However, it is in the interests of all concerned that the plan reaches adoption as soon as possible because we cannot allow the situation—which the hon. Gentleman described as a farce—to go on much longer.
In conclusion, the way forward lies in building on the positive options for meeting housing requirements and protecting the countryside. There is much more common ground than is sometimes acknowledged. Everyone wants to see as much land recycling as possible, and more use of brown-field sites. Everyone wants to see more sustainable patterns of development. Everyone wants to protect the countryside and to help to regenerate our urban areas.
We are conscious of the need to improve the renovation of existing homes. That is why we have increased investment through the capital receipts initiative, and why we have given particular focus to the home improvement agencies that operate locally to advise home owners on their scope for getting grants and assistance to improve their homes. We want to do more to encourage the regeneration of existing homes and the improvement of existing properties.
Everyone wants to ensure that people are properly housed. What we are trying to do is to develop an agenda as pro-actively as possible, and there is a great deal more work to be done in this field. We have a full programme of revising the relevant planning policy guidance notes. We have now published—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We now come to the next debate.

Colombia

Mr. Paul Goggins: A few weeks ago, in February, I visited Colombia as a member of an international delegation that included parliamentarians from seven European countries and representatives of Catholic non-governmental organisations based in Europe and north America. The visit was arranged by the Colombian Catholic Bishops Conference. I was nominated by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, the official Catholic aid agency for England and Wales, and an appropriate entry has been made on the register.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) was also on the delegation, nominated by the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. The purpose of the delegation was to witness at first hand the circumstances of the people of Colombia and to pay special attention to issues of human rights. We were also asked to monitor the impact of recent attempts by the Colombian president, Andres Pastrana, to initiate a new peace process.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House some of the issues that were raised during our visit. Colombia is a complex place, full of paradoxes. It is a beautiful country, rich in natural resources, yet it is scarred by the effects of an internal armed conflict that has lasted for 40 years. It has an impressive economic record, yet more than half its people live in poverty.
On paper, Colombia is a model democracy, but in reality it is one of the most violent societies in the world. With a population of 35 million, it is estimated that, last year alone, more than 30,000 people were murdered. The majority of the killings resulted from street violence and delinquency but a substantial number were a result of the armed conflict.
There are two main guerrilla groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as the FARC, and the National Liberation Army, or the ELN. They have been fighting successive Governments since the 1960s. In addition, there is the United Self Defence Groups of Colombia, an umbrella organisation of right-wing paramilitary groups, led by Carlos Castario. All three have substantial resources, derived in large part from drug trafficking. The state forces, ill equipped and largely conscripted, are simply unable to control them. The situation is further complicated by strong evidence of collusion between the paramilitaries and state forces.
The main victims of the armed conflict, much of which takes place in remote rural areas, are the people who have been displaced, forced to flee from their homes because of the violence. The images of the ethnic Albanians forced to flee Kosovo are fresh in our minds and have disturbed and angered us all. The experience of the displaced people of Colombia is also a shocking story. It is estimated that more than 1 million have been displaced by the violence in the past 10 years. The Colombian Government are more cautious about the figures, but they accept that about 350,000 people have been displaced in the past three years.
Members of the delegation visited several towns and cities in the north and north west of Colombia. Some went to Barrancabermeja and Cartagena. I was with the group


that visited Medellin and Quibdó. Quibdó is in a department called Chocó, an area rich in natural resources such as gold, silver and platinum. Importantly for the paramilitary and guerrilla forces, it also includes the strategically important gulf of Urabá, which provides a route in for arms and out for drugs.
With a population of about 30,000, Quibdó is the temporary home of four communities of displaced people, numbering 2,000 altogether and including 600 families. I met 400 of them—men, women and children—in a disused basketball stadium that had been their home for 27 months. Their mattresses and belongings were scattered around the areas where once spectators had cheered on their local team. In the time that we spent with them, we heard their testimony and witnessed, through a deeply moving dramatic presentation enacted by members of the community, exactly how the paramilitaries had forced them to flee.
The impact of displacement is unspeakable. It traumatises those involved. Family and community structures break down and people are left to live in deep poverty and insecurity. In theory, Colombian law 387 gives displaced people a right to health care, housing and education. In reality, the displaced people of Quibdó have been abandoned by both the local and the national authorities. Fortunately, they at least survive, thanks to the humanitarian support provided by the local church and international NGOs. In fact, much of the funding for that work comes from the European Union.
Some displaced people have formed themselves into what are known as communities of peace. They provide a neutral zone; their members are unarmed and do not support any of the military groups. They are a living symbol of what Colombia could be like if the war were brought to an end. It is pleasing to note that the peace communities have received financial support from our own Department for International Development.
The peace communities are under increasing attack, in particular from the paramilitaries, who accuse them of being in sympathy with the guerrillas. On Sunday 4 April, 10 men armed with guns and grenades walked in to the community of San José de Apartadó and assassinated three of its members. In the past two years, more than 50 of its members have been brutally murdered in similar fashion.
Last Wednesday, 7 April, 12 members of the peace community of San Francisco de Asís were kidnapped by the paramilitaries. On the following two days, the bodies of 11 of the kidnap victims were found. Some showed signs of torture; some had had their throats cut. Other communities face similar experiences. In Barrancabermeja, 10 people were killed only a week after we left. I learned only this morning that a further nine people were murdered there last week. For those left behind, there is fear, insecurity and often further displacement.
It is extremely worrying that those in the church and the NGOs who support communities of displaced people are also being accused by the paramilitaries of collusion with the guerrillas. Their staff are increasingly targeted and threatened. Some organisations have reported that they are being forced to limit the humanitarian assistance that they give.
The killings are not one-sided. The FARC and the ELN continue to carry out appalling atrocities, including the recent murder of three Americans working in support of

a community of indigenous Indians: a group that has been badly hit by the violence. This Monday, an internal flight to Bogotá was hijacked and the 46 people on board kidnapped. According to the latest information that we have, six hostages have been released but the rest are still missing. It is alleged that the action was carried out by the ELN. Every murder and kidnap of innocent civilians that takes place as a result of the armed conflict is wrong and should be condemned.
It is easy to be depressed about the level of violence in Colombia and the plight of the displaced people, but we should recognise that there are signs of hope. The strongest cause for optimism is the dignity and bravery of ordinary people, many of whom take extraordinary risks in the pursuit of justice and peace.
In a 1997 referendum, 10 million Colombians voted in favour of what is called the peace mandate. The Catholic Church has established the National Commission for Conciliation, a high-profile body dedicated to finding an end to the conflict. Crucially, last summer Colombia elected a new president, Andrés Pastrana, who has dedicated himself to the peace process.
Despite many obstacles and set backs, President Pastrana is striving to develop a dialogue with the FARC and the ELN. He has introduced a new military penal code to strengthen the integrity of the state forces and to break the connection with the paramilitaries. He has taken steps to strengthen the protection of human rights workers and backed measures to reduce the alarmingly high levels of impunity.
In an address that President Pastrana gave to the United Nations in January, he said:
Forced displacement, which has recently reached growing and complex proportions, requires special treatment. Every day hundreds of families find themselves adrift, homeless, with the uncertainty and anguish resulting from not having a roof to shelter them.
Our aim is not limited to catering for their immediate need … we are particularly interested in guaranteeing their return home or their voluntary relocation in areas where they can lead a dignified life and give them development alternatives that will ensure lasting solutions.
President Pastrana has also announced Plan Colombia—a $3.5 billion strategy aimed especially at supporting new, sustainable livelihoods in the most remote areas of Colombia. Tackling poverty must be high on the Colombian Government's agenda; as we heard on many of our visits, there can be no peace without justice, and there can be no justice while the gap between rich and poor remains so large. In his ambitious strategy for national renewal and reconciliation, President Pastrana seeks and deserves the support of the international community. However, he must demonstrate that he can turn his fine words into reality.
I want to use the opportunity of this debate to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make urgent representations to the Colombian Government with regard to displaced people and those who work in support of them. I ask him to remind President Pastrana of the commitments that he made in Geneva to take "emergency actions" and to "ensure lasting solutions". I ask my hon. Friend to prevail on the Colombian Government to guarantee the safety of unarmed civilians who live within communities of displaced people and of the staff of the NGOs and the church who are providing humanitarian aid.
Although I applaud the sincere efforts of President Pastrana to move along the road of peace, the guarantee of basic human rights cannot be separated from that search.


I hope that the president will make a breakthrough in his dialogue with the guerrillas, but true peace will come only when the ordinary people of Colombia can lead their lives without fear of murder, kidnap and displacement.
Of course we must also take action ourselves. I urge the Government to do all that they can to reduce the flow of arms to the guerrillas and paramilitary forces in Colombia. Most of those arms are made in, and sold from, the developed world. In addition, we must redouble our efforts to tackle cocaine and heroin abuse. The demand for those drugs in our country ultimately funds the war in Colombia.
I urge the Government to continue to support the work of NGOs in Colombia. During my visit, I felt extremely humble in the presence of so many people who take personal risks every day in the pursuit of justice and peace. They deserve our affirmation and encouragement. It is important that we continue to fund projects that not only give humanitarian assistance, but enhance the capacity of local communities to participate fully in the search for peace.
It was clear from what we heard during our visit that the British ambassador in Bogotá has already earned considerable respect during the short time that he has been there. He promised that he would visit Quibdó and find out about the plight of the displaced people there. I hope that, in due course, my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to report on the ambassador's visit and on any action taken as a result. Given the assurances made by Mr. Thorpe when we met him, I am sure that he will already be responding to the deteriorating situation in the Chocó region. Again, I urge my hon. Friend to impress on our ambassador the importance of UK involvement in initiatives that support the peace process.
I know that there are no easy answers to the conflict in Colombia, but I also know that the vast majority of people in Colombia want peace and it is our responsibility to do whatever we can to support them. The people of Colombia left a deep impression me, as I suspect that they did on my hon. Friend when he visited them. In that spirit, I look forward with great interest to his response.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) for his speech. He spoke with the feeling and human compassion that epitomises his response to the world in general, but I know that he has been deeply moved by his recent experiences in Colombia. He raised a number of issues and I shall try to respond to his specific points.
It is precisely because the Government have a publicly stated commitment to pursue human rights globally that we have a specific obligation to pursue the search for improved human rights in Colombia. That is our foreign policy priority generally and it is an important plank specifically in our bilateral relationship with Colombia. We have already had significant exchanges with the previous Government, the present Government and a considerable number of other groups in Colombian society. We can achieve progress through the type of constructive dialogue in which my hon. Friend has taken part and we are anxious to ensure that our exchanges are productive and not merely an exchange of formalities.
My hon. Friend gave a fair account of the situation in Colombia. For several decades, that country has been beset by a three-way war in a state afflicted historically by a classic guerrilla movement of the left, of the type formerly seen in large parts of the world. Colombia is one of the few countries where that still exists as part of the political reality. However, in addition, there has been the rise of the perhaps even more unpleasant paramilitary groups during recent years. Such groups owe little to ideology, but a lot to banditry and the most brutal thuggery. My hon. Friend's accounts of some of the murders that took place recently are testimony of the vileness of those groups. The matter is further complicated by the fact that drugs fund a considerable level of activity by the paramilitaries and the guerrillas.
In that context, my hon. Friend refers to the fact that about a million people have been displaced. He is right to draw the attention of the House and to the people of this country to the reality of displacement. We know what displacement means from the recent harrowing scenes in Kosovo; the word does not merely describe people being asked to move home, it describes the forced uprooting of people from the communities—from towns, societies and families—that are their normal support. We know how horrendous that is in Kosovo. As my hon. Friend is aware, it is just as horrendous in Colombia because such displacement often occurs at the point of a gun or, at best, when fear becomes so overriding that the most logical decision is to flee.
According to the Colombian NGO, CODHES, 1998 saw the displacement of almost 10,000 people from their homes in the department of Chocó of which Quibdó is the capital. We are not clear how many of those were economic migrants, but it is true that significant numbers of people were displaced by violence between guerrillas, paramilitaries and the state. We have no specific numbers for those displaced in Quibdó rather than in Chocó as a whole, but our embassy in Bogotá estimates that the figure must be several thousand—my hon. Friend mentioned that several thousand people were living in the old stadium in Quibdó.
The increased guerrilla and paramilitary activity in Chocó, especially in the north of the department along the Atrato river, has been the major cause of that displacement in recent times. It has been a problem only during the past two years; as recently as 1996, there was no serious displacement problem in that area.
An additional problem is the difficulty of providing protection for the displaced people and the NGOs in Chocó. Chocó is a poor, remote and traditionally lawless part of Colombia. There are power struggles between the ELN and the paramilitaries and there is also a small FARC presence. The presence of those three groups makes safeguarding displaced people and NGOs extremely difficult. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the work of Peace Brigades International and to the bravery of the volunteers. Through their work, they are able to provide the sort of protection in Chocó, Uraba and elsewhere that the armed forces cannot provide. One of the tragedies of Colombia is that, as it is often described, it is a country without a state. Sometimes, that description is all too graphic an account of the way in which a state is not able to operate in the way that we would expect.
We have raised the issue of the safety of human rights workers with the Colombian Government on a number of occasions, both bilaterally and as part of the EU, and have


called for the implementation of measures to protect them. I have also raised specific cases on a number of occasions. I draw the House's attention to the cases of Mario Calderon, Elsa Alvarado and Carlos Alvarado who were brutally murdered in Colombia some time ago. That case has resulted in a lot of interest in the UK because the killers have not been brought to justice. There have been several arrests, but the problems in the Colombian judicial system mean that no one has been brought to trial yet. The most likely suspect is Castatño, the leader of one of the paramilitary groups, who is presumably immune from the process of justice to the extent that he is protected by that group. That is an outrage and a tragedy because the brutal murder of people who aimed to protect the innocent must be deplored. We must try to build a stronger structure in Colombia to deal with such cases.
Both national and local government have been able to provide only limited humanitarian assistance to people in Quibdó. In addition to being one of the poorest departments in Colombia, Chocó has severe problems of corruption and lack of finance. However, outside assistance is being provided to the department. The European Community Humanitarian Office provided emergency humanitarian assistance to 5,000 displaced people in Quibdó in 1998. It has also provided additional funding to assist displaced people more widely in Chocó this year, and a Spanish NGO has also provided about $280,000.
The UK is also playing its part in assisting the people of Quibdó. We have supported two projects aimed at the local community. The ambassador and embassy officials in Bogota often visit trouble spots, both at the invitation of interested parties and on their own initiative. A visit to the department of Chocó is high on the list of our embassy's priorities. I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific date for the visit, but it is likely to take place soon.
It would be of great benefit if the embassy were to travel as part of a European Union group, both in terms of staff safety and the visit's effect. A date for such a visit will be discussed at the EU heads of mission meeting due to take place in Bogota today. The main objective of a visit would be to assess the displaced problem as it currently stands and identify the best way to provide practical assistance.
I would also like to say a few words about displacement and the human rights situation in Colombia in more general terms. The Colombian Government have been engaged in peace talks with both the FARC and the ELN, but, sadly, the talks were suspended on 19 January by the FARC who demanded that the Government take action against right-wing paramilitaries before talks could be renewed. Although the paramilitaries operate autonomously and the Government have little control over their activities, there have recently been welcome signs of an increased determination by the Government to tackle the paramilitary problem. We hope that, when talks are resumed, they will lead to a meaningful settlement.
Significant problems continue to exist. My hon. Friend referred to Monday's hijacking of an Avianca Fokker aircraft on an internal flight. In addition to four non-Colombians—an Italian, an Ecuadorean, a United States citizen and the Hungarian pilot—there were children and nuns on board, a clear reminder that no one is safe from the internal problems that beset Colombia. The latest information that we have is that the hostages

were released unharmed and put on board a boat. That boat has left the immediate area, but, sadly, nothing more has been heard of them. Until they re-emerge, uncertainty about their fate remains.
On the whole, though, there are encouraging signs that the peace process, which represents the best prospect of significant improvement in human rights for all Colombians, is still in forward gear. We welcome and support President Pastrana's commitment to finding a lasting solution to Colombia's internal conflict. Following his election, and before he took over the presidency formally, one of President Pastrana's first actions was an almost sensational effort to meet guerrillas in Colombia to demonstrate his personal and passionate commitment to the peace process.
I have met the president—and his special representative on peace—and I am convinced of his ambition to drive the peace process forward as one of his Government's highest priorities. We are encouraged by dialogue that has taken place between the Colombian Government and the various parties to the conflict.
There have also been signs that the Colombian Government have begun to address the serious problems of internal displacement, a point that my hon. Friend asked me to raise with them. A presidential adviser on displaced people has been appointed and is working with the office that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has established in Colombia. The UK has contributed £200,000 to the running of that office.
In addition, and partly in response to international pressures, there are signs that the Colombian Government have begun to address the problem of the paramilitaries. It is a matter of record that there has in the past been clear collusion between members of the armed forces and the paramilitaries in Colombia. I have met the head of the Colombian armed forces, who clearly desires to distance the forces from the paramilitaries and to act against those in the forces who have any degree of collusion and complicity. That is welcome.
Recently, several senior army officers have been compulsorily retired for alleged links with paramilitaries, and, as recently as last week, an army colonel was arrested on charges of alleged involvement in a paramilitary massacre in July 1997. Although that shows the historic complicity of the army in human rights abuses, it also shows a determination on the part of the prosecution service and the armed forces high command to investigate such incidents and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
I raised that matter with President Pastrana, who made it clear that he is determined to root out of the armed forces those responsible for those incidents. He personally appointed the current head of the armed forces, whom he trusts and whom he hopes will solve the problems of the armed forces. Those are steps in the right direction, although I cannot tell my hon. Friend or the House that there is not still a long way to go.
Our commitment to the search for peace is absolute, and our objective is to ensure that human rights remains at the top of the Colombian agenda. We can achieve that by engaging the Colombian Government in dialogue at every opportunity. As a sign of our commitment, we support a number of grass roots initiatives designed to


promote respect for human rights. Our embassy is in frequent and detailed contact with NGOs and large sections of Colombian society.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), whose debate this is, may I say that the British embassy and our ambassadors have an honourable record in Colombia in supporting useful schemes? Can the Minister assure us that the embassy may have an increased fund, because its work on the ground has made a difference in the past and may do so again in future?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has a strong interest in Colombia, and she and I have discussed the subject several times. The Government have introduced a human rights fund administered by the Foreign Office that allows us to fund directly the kind of activity so desperately needed in Colombia. We support the worthwhile projects to which my hon. Friend referred, and we shall continue to do so, partly because the exchange with NGOs gives

protection to brave people who are potential victims of the ruthless, evil people who sometimes populate Colombian politics.
The British Government take every opportunity to raise our concerns with the Colombian Government. We regularly remind them of the strength of feeling in Britain about human rights, both in general and over specific issues. I know that President Pastrana is committed to the human rights agenda, and the appointment of Vice President Bell as the Minister for Human Rights is a significant gesture. I will meet Vice President Bell on 27 April, during his visit to the UK, and I will again take the opportunity to raise the issues that concern both my hon. Friends.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation in Colombia and take a real interest in that country's development. It matters in the same way as Kosovo does—because our fellow human beings are suffering dreadfully. We have a responsibility to play our part in resolving their problems.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Aid Conditions (Zimbabwe)

Mr. Philip Hammond: If she will link good governance criteria to the provision of aid for Zimbabwe. [79103]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): As the White Paper on international development makes clear, good government is essential to the economic and social policies that are essential for the reduction of poverty. Our country strategies apply this to all our programmes, 20 of which have been published so far. Our country strategy for Zimbabwe will be published this month.

Mr. Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Does she agree that Robert Mugabe's attempt to confiscate farmland is neither economically sustainable nor politically responsible? If so, what steps is she prepared to take to emphasise that view to the Government of Zimbabwe by redirecting aid from that country to other poor Commonwealth countries that have shown themselves willing and able to respect the rule of law and the right to private property?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman comes to this question very late. It has been an issue since the Government was formed. We made it clear within weeks of the election that there was a strong case for land redistribution in Zimbabwe—the farmers' association agrees with that—but that it must be voluntary and transparent. Zimbabwe's own law requires voluntarism. There is no question of our imposing the condition; Zimbabwe's own law says that there can be no confiscation. We have made that consistently clear, we have worked to form an international coalition to hold that position, and we have had some influence.
I share the hon. Gentleman's worries about Zimbabwe, but it would not be right to abandon, simply because its Government are behaving badly, a country in which poverty is growing. We must remain engaged and try to help those who are hurting, but we must also try to secure a commitment to better policies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about land reform, but I do not agree that as a consequence of what is happening we should exit Zimbabwe.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I recognise and accept what my right hon. Friend says. There is considerable poverty in Zimbabwe, and it has major problems. Do we not have to tackle those problems? The land issue goes back to the Lancaster House settlement 18 or 19 years ago. The problem needs settling, but progress is being made, and there is an intention to pay compensation rather than confiscating land. Must we not do all that we can to ensure that the problem is solved in a way acceptable to the landowners, so that we can then tackle the problem of poverty in Zimbabwe?

Clare Short: I agree that poverty is growing in Zimbabwe, but if that country were well governed,

it could have a bright future. It has a highly educated population and great natural resources, and there is no reason why it should suffer from its present problems. I do not agree that land reform is any longer an issue for Britain in terms of the Lancaster House settlement. Agreements were made then and they have been kept. Zimbabwe needs good economic management, which will give proper opportunities to poor farmers. If land redistribution were handled in that way, it would be beneficial and enjoy support throughout Zimbabwe. We keep being given assurances, but they are resiled from. That is why, I regret to say, progress is not being made.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I recognise the widespread good will that is shown towards debt relief for the poorest countries. Nevertheless, will the Secretary of State continue to emphasise the establishment of democratic processes and proper accountability, to ensure that the debt relief and funding made available to poorer nations are properly used?

Clare Short: I agree that in Zimbabwe, and elsewhere, debt relief should not be given unconditionally. Otherwise, Governments who have borrowed money and wasted it, spent it on luxury projects or frittered it away corruptly would be able to write those debts off and reborrow. That would not do anyone any good. The link between debt reduction and policies that will really bring benefits for the poor is essential. It is there, but in my view it needs strengthening.

Fair Trade

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What steps she is taking to encourage consumer interest in fair trade products. [79104]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I, my right hon. Friend and officials in our Department take every possible opportunity to promote fair trade products and support ethical trading in mainstream business.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating both those who have persuaded their local shops to put fair trade products on their shelves and the shops that have taken part in raising the sale of such products to new heights? Does he agree that the House has helped by buying its coffee and tea as fair trade products; and that if local authorities and other bodies followed suit, it would give great practical help in dealing with poverty in the developing world while allowing us to enjoy the quality of the products?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that she will join me in congratulating our Department's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who, as Chairman of the Catering Committee, has ensured that the House has fair trade coffee and tea. The Secretary of State has also written to 500 major companies asking them to follow suit by stocking fair trade coffee in their vending machines. The House's example could be followed by others, including local authorities. I hope that hon.


Members will encourage their local authorities to provide fair trade coffee and tea. It would come much better from ordinary Members than from big brother Government.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Talking of fair trade, will the Minister consider the report, published today, of the World Trade Organisation on fair trade for bananas? Will he call together all the parties involved so that we can negotiate fair trade for bananas from the vulnerable producing states of the Caribbean?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I nearly said "my hon. Friend". Yesterday, I met representatives of the Caribbean banana exporters and came to a similar conclusion. We need a negotiated settlement acceptable to everyone. The WTO ruling suggests some ways forward, which we are examining with the other Departments involved, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We hope that we can find an agreed way forward as quickly as possible.

Cuba

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What plans she has to provide bilateral aid to Cuba; and if she will make a statement. [79105]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We provide limited direct assistance to Cuba through our small grants scheme administered by the British embassy in Havana. We also contribute help to Cuba through the European Commission Humanitarian Office, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation has been operating there since 1995.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister knows that I am not the man to support Castro and his regime, but considerable damage was done by Hurricanes Mitch and George to Santiago de Cuba and Guantanamo provinces. Does he agree that the people of Cuba should not suffer because of their Government? Can he take further steps, as the United States is doing, to ensure that the people of Cuba get aid—especially the medical community, which is unable even to obtain drugs and textbooks because of currency problems?

Mr. Foulkes: We are concerned to help poor people in any country, irrespective of their Government. When opportunities have arisen, we have expressed our concern about human rights in Cuba, as we have for other countries. We are providing substantial help to Cuba. In 1997, nearly £2 million was provided through the European Community programme. We are keen for the CDC to get more active in Cuba. There are ways in which we can help without necessarily having a bilateral programme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a substantial contribution.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: While I have every sympathy and respect for the Cuban people, there have been allegations of abuses of human rights. The Pope himself voiced such concerns when he

visited Cuba. Is there not a working party of ambassadors examining such problems? What is it doing about those serious allegations?

Mr. Foulkes: That point is more a matter for my colleagues in the Foreign Office, but we, too, are concerned about human rights. The Cubans have recently become an observer in Lomé with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. If it wishes to become a full member, it will have to take account of our representations and those of other countries on human rights.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Would it not be ironic if the Government, who are trying—however ineffectively—to bring down a former communist dictator in Serbia were to prop up a current communist dictator in Cuba through aid supplied by the Department for International Development?

Mr. Foulkes: As I said earlier, we are concerned about poor people who are suffering, whether under Slobodan Milosevic or in any other circumstance. We are bringing help to them. The comparison made by the hon. Gentleman is, if not odious, certainly not apt.

Genetically Manipulated Organisms

Dr. Lynne Jones: What assistance she plans to give to developing countries to enable them to assess the risks and benefits of genetically manipulated organisms. [79106]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We will shortly publish a policy statement on genetically modified organisms in developing countries. As my hon. Friend will know, genetic manipulation is a much wider and less precise concept. Our aim is to help to equip developing countries to manage the safe development and use of those technologies and to apply the guidelines for safety in biotechnology provided by the United Nations Environment Programme.

Dr. Jones: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees that biotechnology has the potential to improve the yield and quality of food protection in developing countries. For example, high levels of blindness in India could be dramatically reduced if the corn used in traditional meals included GM corn containing high levels of vitamin A. However, it is also important that Governments have access to high-quality technical information that is independent of commercial considerations, and that is a proper role for overseas aid. It is also important that Governments should be able to reject technologies that they consider to be harmful—for example, the terminator gene. How confident is my right hon. Friend that they will continue to have that power, given the might of the multinational companies, possibly backed up by the World Trade Organisation?

Clare Short: I agree with almost all the points that my hon. Friend makes. The technology can bring benefits, but countries need the capacity to understand the pros and cons, to manage the process and diminish the risk. The statement that we are about to publish outlines those


concerns and the ways in which we will work with other countries to increase their capacity to manage the technology and make decisions about the use of it.
I also agree that the danger is that major companies will misuse their power to force the technology on to countries without their knowledge, through the import of either seeds or food that is a product of the technology. We need agreement on a biosafety protocol to the convention on biological diversity, which lays down rules on trans-boundary use of GMOs. We are working for that, although we did not get agreement on it at the last talks, as my hon. Friend will know. We must enhance the capacity of developing countries to make decisions, and we need an international convention.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that Britain has an enviable reputation among developing countries for good scientific advice. Will she use her skilled and perhaps robust diplomacy with the three Departments of State currently giving advice on GMOs—the DTI, DETR and MAFF—to obtain a clear statement of the Government's policy on GMOs? It certainly confuses the House and I am sure that it confuses developing nations.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that when the statement of Government policy was issued the interests of developing countries were not covered. That was a serious omission. The policy statement that we are about to publish will make up for that omission and will adopt the policy that I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). It did take a little robust movement in Whitehall to remind other Government Departments of the important interests of developing countries, which is one of the major duties of my Department. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the document when it is published shortly.

Mr. David Heath: Does the Secretary of State agree that the interests of American big business, whether Monsanto, the Chiquita corporation or any other, are not synonymous with free trade, leaving aside the social and environmental consequences of what they peddle? Will she ensure that protection is given to developing countries so that they are not forced to take inappropriate imports or technology?

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some multinational companies see free trade as in their interests and others prefer deals with countries that have high tariffs behind which their trade can be protected. Not all such companies promote free trade. We are in an interesting situation in which a majority of the members of the World Trade Organisation are developing countries and, as they start to use their influence, that will change the control and domination of trade issues in the world economy so that it becomes more equitable.
As to genetically modified technologies being pushed on countries that are not in a position to manage them, the answers lie in strengthening those countries' capacity and in securing a biosafety protocol for the convention on biological diversity.

Mr. Alan Simpson: The Secretary of State will know how many developing countries depend on the developed world's adopting a

clear position that defends the right of the developing world to apply the precautionary principle in terms of food health and environmental health. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in the negotiations and discussions she has described, the United Kingdom will clearly defend farmers' rights to save seeds and will support proposals from the developing nations to pursue sustainable agriculture, which will in turn prevent ownership of the food chain being transferred from local communities to food multinationals?

Clare Short: I have made it clear that we agree absolutely that developing countries need the capacity to manage the technology for themselves and to know what agreements are being made. We require an international convention to ensure that technologies cannot be traded into countries without their knowledge and consent. In addition, we help to fund the international agricultural research bodies that are creating a bank of existing gene technology world wide. A condition of our funding is that there should be no charge for that service, which aims to protect that knowledge and biodiversity for developing countries and to ensure that it is not abused and patented against their interests.

EU Institutions

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): What representations she has received on reducing the proportion of British aid delivered via EU institutions. [79107]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Many people are concerned about the poor quality of EC development assistance. We share those concerns and have published proposals for improvement. We inherited from the previous Administration commitments to the EC that now absorb 30 per cent. of our budget, but are working to ensure that more sensible budget levels are set in future. In Berlin last month, the European Council agreed that commitments under the category that covers external assistance should remain at current levels for the next seven years. That compares with an increase of 180 per cent. agreed at the Edinburgh summit in 1992.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. The Minister will be aware that British aid is regarded highly throughout the world—which is more than can be said for British aid that is distributed through European Union institutions. The priorities of such institutions are completely different from our own and their aid often does not reach the poorest countries. Many view such assistance as very bureaucratic, and it takes a long time to arrive.
What steps can be taken to ensure that the European institutions distributing our money are far more efficient and effective? If they cannot become more effective, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the aid currently distributed through European Union institutions is repatriated so that we can distribute the money more fairly and efficiently?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is being helpful—which is more than can be said for some Opposition Members. We have published 18 specific proposals for improvement and we have met our counterparts from the


other 14 Governments in the European Union, whom we are getting on board. We have had regular meetings with Members of the European Parliament and non-governmental organisations, who have now signed up to a British agenda for securing more effective use of European Community money, greater delegation to the countries concerned and more poverty-oriented allocations. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports that approach, which received the unanimous and uncritical support of the relevant Select Committee—that does not happen often.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another side to the European coin? The European Union has already contributed 250 million euros to Kosovo. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in light of that contribution for humanitarian purposes, we now require a long-term commitment on the part of the European Union and the United Nations of the sort that was employed positively in northern Iraq?

Mr. Foulkes: My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is another side to the European coin. European Union money was effective in South Africa, where it helped to end apartheid, and in Kosovo, as he said. We want to make sure that the commitments made by the European Commission are fulfilled more quickly and effectively and help poor people more than they do at present.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister agree that the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo has highlighted the need for co-ordination at international level and that the European Union is the ideal vehicle for that? Will he tell the House how the EU is co-ordinating its aid to Kosovo and what effect it is having on the EU's long-term aid budget? Does he accept the need for more long-term development aid for Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro to prevent hostility arising from the influx of refugees?

Mr. Foulkes: There is a question further down the Order Paper which is specifically about assistance in Kosovo, and my right hon. Friend will answer that if we get to it. A number of European Union countries are active in Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia, but countries outwith the EU are also involved there, and it would not be proper for the EU to try to co-ordinate the efforts of countries such as the United States and non-EU European countries. That is why the UNHCR, which is particularly concerned with the plight of refugees, takes the lead in helping Kosovo refugees, and it is right that it should do so.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present priority is to use the opportunity of the crisis in the European Commission to appoint as Commissioners people who regard their duty as steering development assistance to the poorest countries of the world and putting in place structures that are sensible rather than bureaucratic?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of the most severe criticisms of maladministration and inefficiency in the European Commission relate to money spent in developing countries, which should have helped

the poorest people of the world but was spent ineffectively. The Commission's assistance to developing countries ought to be the responsibility of a single Commissioner, and we shall strongly press for that.

Mr. Gary Streeter: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for her personal intervention in getting many Kosovo Albanians moved to proper refugee camps over the Easter weekend? I welcome the EU General Council's announcement on 8 April of £100 million of direct assistance for the refugees and £68 million of support for the people of Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Does the Minister agree, however, that the tragic humanitarian crisis on our doorstep places a huge responsibility on EU aid institutions to rise to the challenge and demonstrate once and for all, for the sake of the suffering people in the Balkans, that they can deliver aid to the right people, on time, as effectively as the UK does bilaterally?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend deserves his congratulations and those of the House for the work that she did on her visit in the Easter holiday, and it is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman that he has made those comments. My right hon. Friend is now active in ensuring that the long-term strategy is worked out and that the European Union's response is as co-ordinated and effective as possible. The European Union faces a challenge in playing its part in the international humanitarian effort. It is our determination, and particularly that of the Secretary of State, to make sure that the EU is as effective as possible.

Mr. Streeter: Will the Minister undertake to keep a close eye on the EU's actions? In the past, aid has sometimes been pledged but not received on the ground. Will he make sure that the cash that has been pledged for the people of Kosovo is received by the aid agencies on time and in the right place?

Mr. Foulkes: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I and our excellent officials—who have been doing terrific work, day and night, on the Kosovo crisis, and will continue to do so—will ensure that all the money, not only that of the European Union, is spent effectively. There is a question on Kosovo further down the Order Paper, and it is a pity that we shall not have time to answer it.

Madam Speaker: I was looking forward to reaching that question, but we have made slow progress today.

Debt Relief

Dr. Doug Naysmith: If she will emphasise the link between debt relief and poverty eradication at the spring meetings of the World bank and the IMF. [79108]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Yes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have emphasised continually that the purpose of debt relief should be to increase resources for poverty reduction programmes, not to enable countries to take on new contracts, which is sometimes what it is designed to do. We shall be stressing the central


importance of poverty reduction in the discussions on debt relief at the spring meetings of the World bank and IMF in a few weeks' time, and are pressing for this linkage to be strengthened as part of the outcome of the current review of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative.

Dr. Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that much greater international collaboration is required if these problems are to be solved? Has she been having discussions with other Governments on that?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sometimes, people suppose that the debt that we are talking about is commercial debt, but it is overwhelmingly debt to the World bank, the IMF and export credit departments; and we shall make progress only if we can get international agreement. Since the change of Government, the German Government have adopted a stance supporting deeper and stronger debt relief. We are therefore very hopeful that we shall get agreement, at the forthcoming spring meetings of the World bank and IMF and then of the G8 in Cologne, to get multilateral support for wider and deeper debt relief.

Mr. William Cash: Will the Secretary of State note that the all-party committee for the reduction of third-world debt under the aegis of Jubilee 2000 is extremely grateful for the personal efforts that she has made with respect to the relief of debt in the third world? Will she note that, at 4 o'clock this afternoon, in the Jubilee Room, there will be a meeting, attended by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth together with the wife of President Museveni, for the purpose of continuing that campaign? Will she also note that an initiative is being taken, the object of which is to obtain the support of all parliamentarians throughout the world to apply increasing pressure in support of the campaign for the reduction of third world debt, which I know that the right hon. Lady is doing a great deal to achieve? We wish her every success in what she is seeking to achieve, and congratulate her on the efforts that she has been making.

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he consider inviting me to the all-party group?

Mr. Cash: I have!

Clare Short: At the review of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, we are pushing for a much stronger link between debt relief and poverty reduction. That is very important. We want debt relief, but we want it to benefit Governments who will adopt policies that really benefit the poor; and at the time of decision the support of the hon. Gentleman's group might be very helpful.

Ms Julia Drown: Given the World bank's report last week that showed that for every pound given in grant to developing countries in 1998, £13 was paid back in debt relief, and that that compares with £9 in 1996, does my right hon. Friend agree that much more needs to be done to try to relieve the unsustainable debt of some of the poorest countries in this world which are

committed to tackling poverty; and does she consider that that should include considering completely writing off the debt of some of those countries?

Clare Short: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that there should be more debt relief for the poorest countries that have unsustainable debt and have adopted policies to benefit the poor. Some of the figures that claim that those countries are paying out more on debt than they are receiving in aid are exaggerated, but that is not the main point. The point is to back the reformers and enable them to lift up their poor and create examples of successful development. I strongly support my hon. Friend in that.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I agree with what the Secretary of State has just said, and I know that she would agree that debt relief could undoubtedly be used more effectively as a tool of international development. If a heavily indebted country is prepared to spend effectively on poverty eradication, as opposed to using debt relief to purchase arms and support war; and if, to substantiate that, it is prepared to be independently audited, surely that could be rewarded with more positively phased debt relief.
Would the Secretary of State support the establishment of a new international development auditor, to carry out impartial and rigorous monitoring of budgets, and would she promote that concept at the World bank and IMF meetings later this month?

Clare Short: I completely agree with the hon. Lady's objectives, but we already have the type of auditor that she is looking for—it is called the IMF. In addition, the heavily indebted poor countries initiative is linked to a certain absolute requirement, and all these countries are instituting enhanced structural adjustment programmes with the IMF and have to comply with them. We are trying to get those programmes focused more specifically on poverty.
So the hon. Lady's argument is right, but in fact the machinery is already in place. We do not need a new structure. We need to focus the structure that we have much more sharply on the link with poverty.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

[79133] Mr. Peter Luff: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 April.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Brussels with his European colleagues, meeting the Secretary-General of the United Nations to discuss the situation in Kosovo. I am sure that the whole House wishes the European Union leaders well in their discussions.

Mr. Luff: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House yesterday that Serbian brutality in Kosovo had been


planned well in advance? Three weeks ago, both the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development were saying that no one could have anticipated the Serbian reaction to the NATO bombing campaign, and, incredibly, that to have provided humanitarian assistance in advance would have made us complicit in Milosevic's campaign.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any doubt that the public, who have been watching their televisions, accept that such events have been happening, even during the discussions in Paris, but no one envisaged their scale. The hon. Gentleman should be well aware of that, and should join us in condemning those actions.

Mr. David Chaytor: Does not one of the most worrying consequences of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia relate to the implications for the security of nuclear materials there? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that dialogue with the Russian Government relating to the security of their nuclear installations will continue, and that, if necessary, they will be given assistance to prevent the development of a supply chain of illegal nuclear materials from Russia to Serbia?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Hon. Members have expressed concern about that on a number of occasions in the House. It also featured in the most recent discussions between the Foreign Secretary and his Russian counterpart.

Mr. Peter Lilley: May I reiterate the Conservative party's support for the action in which our armed forces are engaged in the Balkans? May I also ask whether, in the light of the deployment of extra troops that the Prime Minister has announced over the past 24 hours—meaning that more than 85 per cent. of the Army is now committed to, or earmarked for, specific operations—the Government share our concern about the possibility that our Army will become overstretched?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am advised that the Chief of the Defence Staff is entirely satisfied with the situation. The commitment is not as high as 85 per cent.; I believe that it is as low as 43 per cent. In any event, we should take the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff, and in this context we fully accept what he has to say.

Mr. Lilley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but there is real cause for concern. The Chief of the Defence Staff told the Select Committee on Defence last year:
I do not think we could sustain two medium level operations"—
which he defined as being like the one already taking place in Bosnia—
for longer than six months.
In view of our commitments in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Bosnia, and in view of the growth and uncertain duration of our commitment in Kosovo, should we not reconsider the strategic defence review?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not honestly think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said shows any contradiction between what the Chief of the Defence Staff told us today and what he was saying six months ago.

He has given us his judgment, which is that our forces are competent to do what they have been asked to do. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should endorse that judgment, rather than casting doubt on it.

Mr. Lilley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give an immediate answer to the question I asked about the strategic defence review, but there is a serious issue here, and Conservative Members hope that he and his colleagues will consider it seriously. Given that parts of the Territorial Army are already being deployed in the Balkans, will the right hon. Gentleman give immediate consideration to halting the Government's cuts in the TA?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that restructuring in line with the strategic defence review is under way. I must also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the language he uses—as on the last occasion, involving Northern Ireland—does not help our service men to carry out their obligations.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent decision by the Kvaerner group to pull out of shipbuilding world wide, and the effect that that is likely to have on the Kvaerner Govan yard? Will he join me in welcoming the imaginative steps that have been taken so far by the Scottish Office? Will he undertake that the Government will do all they can to preserve commercial shipbuilding in Clydeside, especially by doing everything possible to ensure that Kvaerner gets the roll on/roll off ferries order from the Ministry of Defence; and that, where possible, work placed elsewhere by the MOD will be transferred to that yard to keep all those people in employment?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I fully accept what my hon. Friend said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that he will do everything possible to ensure that industrial and shipping activity can be retained in Scotland. The appointment of Gavin Laird to consider the future of the premises and find a possible buyer is a quick and proper action that we can all support.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that average school class sizes are now larger than they were when Labour took office?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I can confirm that we are on target for reducing class sizes, as we promised.

Mr. Beith: With respect, that is not the same question. In any event, when the right hon. Gentleman made that pledge to five to seven-year-olds, did he envisage that class sizes might gradually be reduced for them, while they increased for the rest of the school system—for eight to 11-year-olds, secondary schools and nursery schools? The average class size is larger in each of those categories, as it is overall. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it acceptable to cut class sizes for a quarter of our children by raising them for three quarters? Would it be a little off-message to admit that that is not good enough?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were on target for reducing


class sizes—[Interruption.] That is the answer that he is going to get, anyway. From September this year, we expect that fewer than 200,000 infants will be in large classes, compared with the figure of almost half a million which we inherited. That is an example of a good record, and of a party and a Government carrying out their promises.
On a more personal note, I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to ask a question today, as we deputy leaders do not often get such an opportunity. That opportunity was given by his party leader, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), to the only man who is not challenging for leadership of the Liberal Democrat party.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Over the weekend, I was in Macedonia to see the work that UNICEF is doing there. The vast majority, if not all, of the Kosovo Albanians to whom I spoke support the action of NATO and of the British Government. We should be proud of what our troops are achieving there. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the commitment that the Prime Minister gave that those guilty of war crimes in Kosovo will be prosecuted if we can bring them to justice? I was told a horrific tale of 15 people having been massacred, five from one family, by hooded Serb policemen. Such people should be brought to justice.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Those are matters of serious concern. We have heard horrific reports from the camps about the systematic rape of Kosovo Albanian women. That is the same appalling practice as the Bosnian Serbs used as a weapon of war against the Muslims in Bosnia. It is also reported that General Mladic, who was indicted for war crimes in Bosnia in 1995, is commanding a gang of thugs in Kosovo, and that the war criminal Arcan is recruiting volunteers for his paramilitary units from prisons in Serbia. That shows the sort of people on whom the Serbian leadership is relying to carry out its vicious ethnic cleansing.
Let us be clear—the Prime Minister has made it clear—that anyone who has committed war crimes and who is indicted by the tribunal as criminals, shall be pursued exactly as we are pursuing those who committed such crimes in Bosnia.

[79134] Mr. Andrew Robathan: We all condemn the ghastly crimes that the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned, but perhaps he remembers telling the House that
The demands are reasonable: they are an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia and an international military force to underpin the settlement."—[Official Report, 24 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 484.]
Are those still NATO demands? He mentioned the armed forces a moment ago. Is he aware of the concerns being expressed to me and to others by former colleagues in the armed forces about the shifting and confused military and political objectives?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the House tires of hearing hon. Members offer support and then make statements that undermine the clear aims that have been set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I confirm yet again, as my right hon. Friend made clear to the House yesterday, that those are the aims that we had at the beginning and they continue to be our aims.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend commend the efforts being made in

Lancaster by business and the higher education community to build business development on the superb research skills of a world-class university, and to make Lancaster not only the geographical and historical heart of the north-west, but the economic heart of a vibrant north-west region—and, hopefully, of a north-west regional government in the future?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much accept what my hon. Friend has said. With our extra £20 billion for education and the new development agencies that we have just launched in the regions, Government policy will make a considerable difference, helping to improve the prosperity of the region and to achieve the objectives that he has so eloquently spelled out.

[791351 Mr. William Thompson: Has the Deputy Prime Minister the grace to acknowledge that those of us who have been opposed to the Belfast agreement have been confirmed in our consistent belief that paramilitary organisations are not going to decommission their arms? The remarks yesterday confirmed that. Will he acknowledge that we have been right? Will he state that as long as paramilitary organisations maintain that attitude, they cannot sit in a democratic Executive and govern?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I recall visiting Omagh, which is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, after the terrible tragedy of the bombing. I well understand and accept the deep feeling that he had about the agreement at that time, but I believe that it is necessary to find agreement in Northern Ireland, and the great majority of the people want that. It is not helpful at this stage to cast doubt on whether we will achieve an agreement. The people of Northern Ireland desperately want an end to the spectre of violence that has plagued them for so long. The Good Friday agreement is the only way to achieve that and it is vital that the parties work constructively this week to find an agreed way forward. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear, we can all defend our corners and say, "I told you so", but that has dominated the language and debate in Ireland for far too long.

Gillian Merron: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents, teachers, governors and Ministers are right to be concerned that Tory-controlled Lincolnshire county council is failing to pass on in full the £14 million of extra resources for education made available by the Government to enable children and schools to flourish, not flounder, in Lincolnshire?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. Lincolnshire is not the only authority that professes to want—[Interruption.] It is not the only Tory authority either. Any authority that does not pass on the extra resources that the House intended for the improvement of education in its area should be condemned. We made those resources available to improve education and we want them to be used for that. We want those aims to be achieved by councils of whatever political colour and we shall call on them to do so.

[79137] Sir Michael Spicer: In view of the firm commitments given to the Select


Committee on the Treasury by the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that the withholding tax will not be introduced in this country?

The Deputy Prime Minister: As Secretary of State for the Environment, I constantly have to deal with the disastrous poll tax. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we have given local authorities the most generous settlement that they have ever received—

Hon. Members: More, more.

Madam Speaker: Order.

[79138] Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We will have a little order.

Mr. Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful visit by the waterways Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), to the £78 million millennium canal link project in central Scotland? He visited it with the Minister responsible for transport in the Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that United Kingdom Ministers will continue to work in co-operation with the Scottish Parliament in areas of joint interest? Will he underline the message that Scotland and the UK are stronger together, and that the Government will do everything in their power to resist the expensive and threatening divorce that is put forward by the Scottish National party as its policy for Scotland's future?

The Deputy Prime Minister: We are keen to strengthen the role of waterways as one good example of partnership. Since we came in, we have increased resources by £8 million, a 17 per cent. increase, and changed the rules so that public and private partnerships can play a greater part in transferring freight to the waterways. In those circumstances, we emphasise the role of partnership, not separation, both with central Government and Scotland, as well as within Scotland between the authorities and private authorities, to improve the waterways and to add to the prosperity of Scotland—in the name of partnership, not separatism.

Mr. Peter Lilley: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister about a tax with which he may be familiar? The last time we discussed the crisis in the road haulage industry, he refused to contemplate any changes in the duty rate set in the Budget. Can he confirm that he is now considering the Conservative proposal to reopen the Budget by charging foreign lorry drivers who use British roads, and using the revenue so raised to cut vehicle excise duties?

The Deputy Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we are not reopening any of the proposals that were made in the Budget. We think that the proposals affecting the road haulage industry have been confirmed by the latest reports that show that costs are lower for our

industry than for many of its competitors—[Interruption.]> Many independent reports have shown that to be so and I do not see that they are being challenged in any way.
Nevertheless, we continue to discuss with the road haulage industry any issues that it wishes to discuss about future development of policy. That is right. That is what we are doing. We think that that is a proper policy.

Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that his Department—indeed, his junior Minister, the Minister of Transport—has specifically asked to discuss the Conservative proposal with the road haulage industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the only purpose of introducing a Brit disc tax on foreign lorry drivers who use British roads is to be able to reduce the amount of vehicle excise duty charged in the Budget? Does he not realise that action is needed and that it is needed now—not next year, but now?
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a number of substantial firms—such as T. Brady, which has 78 lorries—have just announced that they are going into liquidation, with a terrible loss of jobs? Will he introduce a Brit disc and a corresponding reduction in vehicle excise duty in the Finance Bill that is now going through Parliament?

The Deputy Prime Minister: No, we will not do that because the whole picture has to be taken into account and I have given the right hon. Gentleman one indication of that. It is a bit much to hear such comments from a Treasury Minister of six years, whose Government developed a policy of boom and bust in the economy and put 5,000 road transport haulier companies out of business. Now he has the audacity to talk to us about reducing a fuel tax that they introduced.

Mr. Lilley: Is not the reason that the right hon. Gentleman has to resort to bluster the fact that the Treasury has landed him in this mess? The Economic Secretary admitted that she made no assessment of the impact on the road haulage industry of the difference between road taxes here and on the continent. Is not the Government's road tax policy, begun in ignorance and continued through arrogance, now in confusion, leaving the industry in deep crisis?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any doubt about the information that is available on the difference between costs incurred by British and European companies. The figures are produced by a company called KPMG. I assume that even the right hon. Gentleman will accept the authenticity of that company. KPMG has examined haulage companies and has made it clear that typical business costs are £600,000 higher in the Netherlands and £820,000 higher in Belgium. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has made that point time and again. It is somewhat strange to hear the right hon. Gentleman advocating a common European tax when most of the time the Opposition are against European tax. In view of his comments about French lorry drivers, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should condemn the action by hauliers and offer us an apology. It is time that the Opposition apologised for their past mistakes. Would it not be better for them to apologise than simply to try to rewrite history, as they do time and again? That is hypocrisy.

New National Forest

[79139] Mr. David Taylor: When he next expects to visit the new national forest.

The Deputy Prime Minister: rose—

Hon. Members: Come on.

The Deputy Prime Minister: There are different ways of doing it at different times; it is the way I tell them. Just hang on. The answer is: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the first new national forest for several centuries, covering 200 square miles and several parliamentary constituencies, has been an astonishing success, but for it to be genuinely environmentally sustainable, passenger rail services need to be returned to the national forest line between Leicester and Burton? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the integrated transport strategy was designed to encourage just such projects? When he visits the area, will he reassure the 200,000 people who live there that the Government cavalry can ride to the rescue of the scheme, which is rapidly becoming becalmed in a quagmire created by Tory privatisation?

The Deputy Prime Minister: May I apologise for causing some confusion at the beginning of the question? I thought that you said that it was Question 7, Madam Speaker; now I understand that it is Question 6.

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in perfect order. It is Question 7.

The Deputy Prime Minister: There was a change to or the removal of a question, so I thought this was Question 6. I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House.
My hon. Friend asked how we could improve the railway service in the area. Without doubt, we want improvements in the railways and in access to the wonderful countryside. Rail routes that have been discontinued or are not properly used are being reviewed by the Strategic Rail Authority, which started business on 1 April. We believe that it will improve access to the industry and to those beautiful areas—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. If the House would come to order and hon. Members would read their Order Papers, they would know which question was being answered—[Interruption.] No; hon. Members should read the Order Paper. This is a substantive question.

Engagements

[79140] Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): Does the Deputy Prime Minister remember telling the Labour party conference last September that
the performance of our privatised railway is by common consent a disgrace, with service reductions, failing performance and increased fares"?

Can he explain why the Department of Trade and Industry has published a report recently called "Releasing the Power of Rail", which boasts that
Britain's railways have experienced a revolution in thinking as well as massive new investment. There is new energy and enthusiasm in the industry. The customer is king"?
What explains this miraculous transformation from base metal to gold? Was he right or has he now been shunted into the sidings by his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The reference in the Department of Trade and Industry report was to the engineering excellence available in the United Kingdom. The problem with privatisation in the United Kingdom is that we have not had or achieved that type of modern investment, and that, by common consent, privatisation has not improved the railway system. The appointment of the Strategic Rail Authority, a new franchising director and a new Rail Regulator will make a difference. It is a spring clean. I intend to make a change, and that change will come.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the subject of withholding money, has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's newspapers? The Daily Express—no less—has informed us that, in the run-up to the general election, the Tory party took £18,000 from a firm that was close to Milosevic. None of them have denied it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that money should be handed over to the Secretary of State for International Development, so that she can take the money to the refugees?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure that that point has been heard. We shall see whether the Tories respond to it in the same spirit.

Q9. [79141] Mrs. Eleanor Laing: A few moments ago, the Deputy Prime Minister failed to answer the question asked, very reasonably, by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). If I ask a more simple question, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will answer it. In view of the refusal of paramilitary organisations in Ireland to give up their weapons, will the Deputy Prime Minister now agree with what Opposition Members have been saying for many months—that there should be no more releases of terrorist prisoners until decommissioning starts and terrorism stops? Does he agree or not?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is understood in the House that there is bipartisan agreement on support for the Good Friday agreement—which involved release of prisoners. The agreement has been endorsed by the House, and it has certainly been endorsed in Northern Ireland. All of us should use the type of language that encourages people to finalise the Good Friday agreement, rather than to ask such questions. If that is the type of advice that the hon. Lady is giving, it is only as good as the advice that she gave as the special adviser on railway privatisation.

[79142] Mr. Clive Soley: Is it not time to put on record what my right hon. Friend will remember well—that, during our years in opposition, we gave support to the Conservative party in government, particularly on Northern Ireland, and particularly when the United Kingdom was at war? [Interruption.] We did not attempt to seek narrow party advantage, as we have heard today. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will have a little silence on the Opposition Benches, particularly on the Front Bench.

Mr. Soley: On issues such as Northern Ireland and Kosovo, support should stay solid on both sides of the House.

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—and I do believe that support is solid on both sides of the House. However, some individual voices express certain views. I appeal to them to bear it in mind that words spoken in the Chamber can have an effect that does not help the process of peace,

whether it is in Kosovo or Northern Ireland. Good language, sane language and common sense are far better as the voice of this House.

Mr. David Atkinson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell my constituents in Bournemouth why their council tax remained substantially the same under the previous Conservative Government, but has risen by 20 per cent. under this Government?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The reality of the agreement on council tax increases, on average—[HON. MEMBERS: "In Bournemouth."] I shall deal with Bournemouth in a second. The average council tax increase was 6.8 per cent. On average, across the country, Tory councils had higher increases, at 7.6 per cent., and Labour councils had lower ones, at 6.1 per cent. We are producing a better-value service that has been recognised in the United Kingdom. In the elections in 1995, we returned a record number of councillors and councils. Now, Tory councils are responsible for and in control of only 5 per cent. of councils, including Bournemouth. The people gave their verdict on the Tory councils, and they rejected them.

Points of Order

Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have seen newspaper reports today that following the defeat of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill in the House of Lords last night, the Government are claiming that they will now use the Parliament Acts to bring the Bill back for a third time. If that is done in a year's time, a change will be sought to the law in Scotland in an area which will by then be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland made any attempt to make a statement in this House to clarify under what legislation the Government intend to implement such proposals, which undermine their own policy of devolution?

Madam Speaker: I am not aware of any statement that is about to be made in the House. The Government have not made their intentions known to me at this stage.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that one of the Government's key policies is to get youth unemployment down, and I know that all hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see the statistics on youth unemployment. Apparently, the Office for National Statistics has just announced that the Government have asked it not to keep those statistics any more, so we will not be able to see whether the new deal is working or not.

Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Bruce: Have you had a request for a statement on this matter, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: No. If there was to be a statement, we would all know about it because it would be on the Annunciator.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answering questions, the Deputy Prime Minister urged us all to rally behind the Government. Could you rule that this House—of all places—must be a place where people are allowed to express reservations about Government policy in good faith?

Madam Speaker: It is not for me to indicate what Ministers or Back Benchers should say in this House. We are all free to express our opinions. The hon. Gentleman, as a Back Bencher, is entitled to his point of view just as much as much as any Front Bencher.

Cancer Care

Mr. Paul Marsden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about cancer services in the United Kingdom; to make provision for monitoring and improving the quality of cancer treatment and care provided by the National Health Service; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a new review and report on cancer services in the United Kingdom; and to provide for making such information available to the general public.
Cancer has been called the greatest health care challenge of the 21st century. Britain can boast some of the finest cancer treatment centres in the world, but the disease still affects one in three people. That means that about 440 sufferers die every single day, with an annual total of 160,000 deaths.
In Britain, we have one of the worst cancer mortality rates in the world; worse than Germany, Italy, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, the United States, Spain and Japan. It is a growing problem. People are living longer—which is to be well received—but that presents greater problems, as people are then susceptible to cancer in old age. We have improved treatments that improve survival rates, but we have specific increases in lung and skin cancers.
The Calman-Hine report has said that provision is a cancer lottery, especially in rural areas. The Government clearly see the fight against cancer as a priority, and I welcome that. Following the Calman-Hine report's recommendation that services should be made more patient-centred, and dovetailed together, we have seen various papers, including "Our Healthier Nation" and "The New NHS", which make cancer a priority. There is a new two-week deadline to see a consultant for all cancer patients. The National Cancer Forum has recently been established.
I welcome the announcement only last month by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health of £150 million of new national lottery money, which will result in better education of the public, new cancer screening, new treatments and improved technology.
The Bill is backed by the main cancer charities, and especially Macmillan Cancer Relief, which is devoted to caring for people with cancer. It provides about 1,700 nurses nationwide and has invested about £70 million in building projects to provide the tender loving care that is needed by cancer patients and their families. I want to express my gratitude to Macmillan for its support and advice on the Bill and to other cancer charities and organisations such as the Cancer Research Campaign, the British Association of Cancer United Patients, Marie Curie, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Sargent, the Royal Marsden hospital and the Institute of Cancer Research.
I was astonished to find that, at present, there is no central register or directory of cancer care services. The information is fragmented by type of cancer or by region or is simply non-existent, especially for the rarer cancers. From speaking to patients, carers, nurses, doctors, consultants and researchers I believe that there is overwhelming support for such a directory.
The Bill would require the Secretary of State for Health regularly to review cancer services and to produce a guide to identify the type of cancer care provision; areas of


greatest need; the range of treatment; information for patients on the different strains of the disease; performance statistics for cancer care centres, in particular, the number of patients treated; the facilities available; and the survival rates—and to place it on an internet website and disseminate it through NHS Direct so that it is widely available. The directory would need to be maintained, reviewed and evaluated.
The directory would allow patients access to current information on the cancer that affects them, the specific details of the treatment that they can expect to receive, the quality of the cancer care at their local or referred centre and contact information for charities and support groups. For the primary care groups to which we can look forward, it would give information on availability and extent of treatment locally and nationally, on the results of on-going trials, on new technology and on points of contact. It could be used by many organisations worldwide.
I salute the courage of all cancer sufferers and their families. Day in, day out they battle under enormous mental and physical strains. They have to take the good and the bad news from doctors and battle through sickness, tiredness, pain and fear. They dread the surgery, the chemotherapy and the radiotherapy that can cure them.
I know the damage that can be done by cancer. My father, Tom Marsden, died of the disease 14 years ago. I have also seen it at first hand in the Shropshire and Mid-Wales hospice, which I have visited regularly and on behalf of which I hope to complete the Flora London marathon on Sunday. I sincerely look forward to other hon. Members being present, in mind if not in body.
We must celebrate the courage of those affected by cancer and remember that survival rates are 50 to 60 per cent. on average, and much higher for specific types of cancer. I have seen the professionals in the front line at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. In particular, I thank Dr. Rajiv Agrawal and Tim Cooper, the manager of the radiotherapy unit. They have given unstinting support, advice and help in the preparation of the Bill and they and their team of nurses are dedicated professionals helping and caring for cancer sufferers every day.
We should support the medical professionals through more funding for research and better information in the effort to find new cures for cancer. The Bill would go a small way towards helping everybody—patients, carers and medical professionals—and I urge the House to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Marsden, Dr. Evan Harris, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Kevin Barron and Dr. Doug Naysmith.

CANCER CARE

Mr. Paul Marsden accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about cancer services in the United Kingdom; to make provision for monitoring and improving the quality of cancer treatment and care provided by the National Health Service; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a new review and report on cancer services in the United Kingdom; and to provide for making such information available to the general public: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 April, and to be printed [Bill 82].

Orders of the Day — Access to Justice Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have had to impose a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Access to Justice Bill is the most important legal reform of the past 50 years. It is radical and innovative. It is a significant step in restructuring our legal services better to protect the rights of our citizens. It will focus legal services on people's real needs. It presents a considerable opportunity and a considerable challenge to all who work in the law.
Few people who have been through our justice system would argue that it does not need fundamental reform. It is slow, expensive and unpredictable. We are determined to deliver a modern justice system that meets the needs of all our citizens in the modern era. The public demand, and we must deliver, a justice system in which they have the utmost confidence. We will not be diverted from that task by reactionary elements in the legal professions. The legal system is not an end in itself; it is for and about the protection of people and of society. It protects our basic rights. Our legal services must serve the users and society generally, rather than the needs of those operating the system.
The one attempt at reform by the previous Government, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, was a half-hearted effort which, ultimately, failed to deliver the changes needed to make the legal world serve the needs of its clients and society. Our intention with the present Bill is to go much further—to reorient legal services away from the interests of lawyers towards the needs of customers and the wider public. That is the central ambition of our reforms and the central aim of this modernisation.
Before dealing in detail with the Bill's provisions, the House will want to examine carefully the content of the Opposition's reasoned amendment. I hesitate to describe the amendment as "reasoned" because, despite its length, it gives little insight into what—if anything—the Conservatives really think about these proposals. They seem to be against them, no doubt for cynical and opportunist reasons, but what do they actually believe in?
Can the Conservatives, who presided over a 20 per cent. cut in eligibility for legal aid while they were in office, and who in 1993 cut more than 25 per cent. of the population out of the green form scheme, really claim now to be the guardians of access to justice? Can members of a party whose Government introduced conditional fees allowing 100 per cent. uplifts now complain four years after the event that that was wrong in principle as it supposedly increases the cost of litigation?
Are the Conservatives against the concept of the Legal Services Commission in principle? Are they against the criminal defence service? Does their concern about


imposing statutory restrictions on the Crown Prosecution Service mean that, not unsurprisingly, they are lining up with those reactionaries who want to maintain, or even extend, restrictive practices in the law?
What is most worrying about the reasoned amendment, however, is that the official Opposition do not appear to have read the Bill very carefully. There is no suggestion in the Bill that there will be a system of wholly state-employed prosecutors or defenders. Moreover, the powers that the Bill grants to the Lord Chancellor to alter the rules of the legal professions, far from being unilateral, can be exercised only with the approval of Parliament. Are the Opposition really claiming that that is an insufficient safeguard?
Let me now explain what the Bill actually does. It creates the community legal service which will be responsible for considering the need for civil and family legal services. It will build up a pattern of legal services to meet that need as far as resources will allow. It creates a criminal defence service which will replace criminal legal aid. Publicly funded criminal defence services will continue to be available in all cases where the interests of justice require it.
The Bill makes the success fee in conditional fee arrangements and insurance premiums recoverable in costs; that will greatly extend the use of no win, no fee agreements, ensuring that the successful claimant is not punished by a reduction in damages.
The Bill extends full rights of audience in principle to all lawyers, and sets up a system for regulating the legal profession with a dynamic for further change. It will ensure that civil appeals are heard at the right level and that they are dealt with in a way proportionate to their weight and complexity. It will change the organisation and management of magistrates courts so that they can better serve the public and help with our plans to make the criminal justice system more co-ordinated and speedy.
Why are we introducing the Bill at this time? It is essential that the United Kingdom maintain an effective justice system. Our system of justice has many admirable features—in particular, the many lawyers who work, sometimes without payment, for the disadvantaged and on cases that do not always meet with popular approval.
Access to justice is far from perfect, however. Services available from lawyers can be disproportionately expensive. Instead of predictable prices, those with potential legal cases are intimidated by the prospect of an open-ended bill drawn up after the event. That can discourage not only those with limited means, but the relatively well-off. The system is biased towards court-based solutions, even when alternatives to court may work better.
We have a patchwork quilt provision of legal advice, which has been stitched together over time by solicitors and the funders and providers of advice in the voluntary sector, without any thread of co-ordination. Nor is the quality of legal services always as good as it might be. The volume of complaints that the Law Society's Office for the Supervision of Solicitors receives shows growing dissatisfaction with the services of some solicitors.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Does my hon. Friend believe that self-regulation is the reason for the failure of that office? Is there not a need for independent regulation?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is consistently assiduous in pursuing that point and I shall deal with it in more detail shortly.
Between 1991–92 and 1997–98, expenditure on civil and family legal aid rose from £330 million to £634 million, an increase of 92 per cent. During the same period, gross domestic product rose by only 19 per cent. However, the number of people helped fell by 10 per cent. The taxpayer has been paying more for less. Expenditure has been more stable for the past couple of years, but the fact remains that legal aid spending is volatile and cannot be controlled with any certainty.

Mr. John Swinney: Legal aid is a power devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the Bill will pass through the House of Commons during the period in which the Scottish Parliament will assume its full legislative functions from 1 July. Do any provisions in the Bill impinge on the default powers being given to the Scottish Parliament, and will there be dialogue between here and there on any area of the Bill?

Mr. Hoon: The answer to each of those questions is no.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Given the worrying statistic that fewer people were helped over the period that my hon. Friend mentioned, does he accept the Legal Aid Board's finding that a principal reason was the increase in the limits of small claims courts, which took a large number of people out of the ambit of legal aid?

Mr. Hoon: That may well be the case, but the cost is rising at a time when the number of acts of assistance are falling. The taxpayer has been paying considerably more and getting considerably less. Expenditure in the financial year just ended was around £1.63 billion—£104 million or 7 per cent. more than in the previous year—which demonstrates the volatility of increases and the change possible from year to year in the present legal aid scheme.
Furthermore, civil legal aid is very restricted. For the most part, only people qualified to claim benefits can use legal aid. Those who have slightly more disposable income, but who still have very modest resources, are effectively excluded.
What are we doing to solve these problems? The Bill is only part of our plans. The White Paper laid before Parliament last December puts the Bill in a wider context, which includes the programme of reform to the civil courts that will come into effect on 26 April, and which will make the cost of cases more predictable and their progress more rapid.
Today, I must concentrate on what the Bill will do to modernise legal services. The first part of the Bill will reform the legal aid scheme to provide the best possible services for people within the constraints of available resources, and by securing the best possible value for money. The Bill will establish the Legal Services Commission to operate the community legal service and the criminal defence service. The community legal service will subsume the existing programme of family and civil legal aid, but its objectives will be wider and more innovative.
The most radical feature of the community legal service is that, for the first time, we will assess the need for legal and advice services and develop the provision of such


help in response to that need. In partnership with local funders of legal and advice services, and in particular with local authorities, the community legal service will draw up plans for the delivery of legal and advice services, taking account of identified needs and priorities.
No Government can guarantee that all needs will or can always be met. That is certainly not the case with the existing legal aid system. But we intend for the first time to be in a position to base funding choices on real evidence.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is not one of the effects of the scheme that the Minister is introducing the fact that, whereas under the old system the state disbursed to help people who did not have enough money to litigate, the state will now choose which forms of litigation it considers socially desirable and therefore worthy of support? Is that a desirable development in a free society?

Mr. Hoon: That already happens under the existing scheme. The hon. Gentleman knows that some cases are within the scope of the existing system and some are outside it. If, as we hope to, we bring the overall cost of legal aid under control for the first time, we may also be able to think more carefully about the areas that have historically been excluded, and try to provide financial support. The precondition for that approach is to get the existing scheme under control, however. The previous Government consistently failed to do that, but it is our ambition to be successful.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most interested in the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend's question. Is the Government's objective merely to contain or even to reduce the money that the taxpayer gives in legal aid, or is the Minister concerned to ensure that as many people as possible who need justice from our system but need to rely on legal aid to get it, receive help?

Mr. Hoon: Our ambition is to control the cost of legal aid and to ensure that we can plan appropriate provision year on year to meet need. That means that we will carefully consider the range of people affected—the most vulnerable people in our society who have legal problems and need legal advice—so that we can direct scarce taxpayers' resources to meeting their needs. The present system does not achieve that, but we are determined that the Bill will right the wrong.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hoon: May I make a little more progress first? I shall give way in a few minutes.

Mr. Hawkins: On this very point?

Mr. Hoon: All right.

Mr. Hawkins: Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will the Minister confirm the simple fact that in the last year for which figures are available, the number of people

helped by legal aid increased by 3.2 per cent. whereas legal aid spending increased by only 1.2 per cent? Does that not make my hon. Friend's point for him and undermine the Government's claim that the new scheme is intended to help people? It is not intended to help people; it is simply intended to save money.

Mr. Hoon: On the contrary. The hon. Gentleman is not using the most up-to-date figures. That is understandable, because they are probably not available to him. The figures on which he is relying are for the year before last. I have already conceded that for a couple of years there was some slowdown in the rate of increase. However, our best information is that the level of increase for last year is about 7 per cent., which demonstrates the degree of volatility involved.
Within the overall community legal service, the community legal service fund will replace the existing legal aid scheme for civil and family cases. This will secure the provision of publicly funded legal services on the basis of national, regional and local priorities. The Legal Services Commission will, in the light of those priorities, draw up a funding code, which will be approved by the Lord Chancellor and agreed by Parliament. That code will set out the detailed criteria and procedures for deciding whether to fund individual cases.
This approach will be both tougher and more flexible than at present. The funding code will allow different criteria to apply to different kinds of cases and different types of help. We will ensure that help is channelled to the cases that most need support. That means that, where appropriate alternatives to public funding exist, we shall expect them to be used, to allow us to focus scarce public money where the need is greatest and where it can do most good.
Accordingly, this Bill carries through the policy announced last July of requiring most personal injury claims to be taken using conditional fee agreements. Conditional fees are an important means of extending access to justice to the great majority of the population, who have effectively been denied access to the courts by the fear of lawyers' bills. Only the very rich, those with insurance and those poor enough to qualify for legal aid have any hope of achieving real access to justice.

Mr. John Bercow: What does the Minister say to Mr. Phillip Sycamore, the president of the Law Society, who has said that the Government's proposals for conditional fee arrangements involve removing civil rights from large sections of the population and denying them access to justice? I was concerned to see the Minister, who is normally a polite soul, chuntering when I mentioned the president of the Law Society, who is an estimable person and deserves a proper response. As premiums, especially in relation to cases of medical negligence, can be onerous, is not the Minister concerned that people currently eligible for legal aid will find their cost beyond them?

Mr. Hoon: The reason for my concern about the hon. Gentleman's comments is that Mr. Phillip Sycamore has not been president of the Law Society for some time. I accept that he was previously president. I do not accept that the system of conditional fees restricts access to justice. The overwhelming evidence of the correspondence that I receive from hon. Members on both


sides of the House is that people complain that they cannot get legal aid because they are just above the financial limit. Those people are denied access to justice, which can be secured through no win, no fee agreements which mean that lawyers take the risk and that people can safely rely on the quality of advice that they are given.
The present problem with conditional fees is that they penalise the successful plaintiff by paying the lawyer's success fee out of the damages recovered, thus reducing the compensation. We propose instead to allow the claimant to recover the success fee. We will also make insurance premiums paid by a successful litigant in connection with specific proceedings recoverable by way of costs. That will make the use of conditional fee arrangements fairer and more effective for everyone and place the cost of having to take action in the courts squarely with the individual or organisation whose fault caused the litigation in the first place. For the client, the proposal will ensure that the full damages recovered will be retained, rather than a slice going to his or her lawyers. That is a significant step forward for the operation of conditional fees.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister mentioned the benefits of conditional fee agreements, which we introduced. We recognise, as he does, that they are of benefit, but they are of benefit as an add-on. The Bill will remove legal aid from poor people who have suffered personal injury unless they have cast-iron cases. Deserving but less than cast-iron cases will find it difficult to get lawyers. That criticism has been made by many experienced lawyers on both sides of the House and of the party divide. What has the Minister to say to it?

Mr. Hoon: I am slightly surprised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opening observation, since the reasoned amendment is critical of the operation of conditional fees and his name has been appended to it; perhaps he, or whoever wrote it for him, did not check its precise contents. On those eligible for legal aid at present, I have every confidence that anyone with a good case will be able to find a lawyer willing to take it, either through their membership of a trade union or other organisation, through insurance or through lawyers being prepared to fund the up-front costs.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Upon what research does my hon. Friend base that assertion? Where can we obtain it?

Mr. Hoon: Conditional fees have operated entirely successfully for some four years. I receive a welter of correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members complaining about the legal aid system. To the best of my knowledge, the Department has received only one letter complaining about the operation of conditional fees. My hon. and learned Friend will be familiar with trade union schemes, which operate in a similar way to no win, no fee arrangements in the sense that union lawyers recover their costs and pay their staff out of the successful cases that they pursue. If they happen to take a case that is not successful, they bear the costs in the same way that lawyers operating conditional fees will bear the costs. Those schemes operate successfully for the benefit of members of trade unions.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend qualified his example by talking of people with a good

case. That phrase is important, because many people who now get legal aid have a marginal case that needs to be tested and which they cannot hawk round lawyers to see whether it fits into their portfolio of risk. The problem is that the Bill will lead to cherry picking. Big firms will snaffle the good cases and the difficult cases of people who do not have the time, ability or perhaps the sense to find a lawyer to take them up, especially in places such as Grimsby, will not be followed up.

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that. The great majority of people who are not at present eligible for legal aid face exactly that situation, but they find lawyers who are willing to take their cases on a conditional fee basis. There is no reason why everyone should not have that support. The prize for that is the ability to channel scarce taxpayers' resources into those areas with a greater need. My hon. Friend knows that personal injury litigation operates successfully, and it will continue to do so, notwithstanding the fact that legal aid will not generally be available in most cases. In those circumstances, it will be possible for people to find lawyers willing to take their cases, and the benefit for the Government is that we will be able to release resources to other, more vulnerable people who have not received help from the taxpayer since the legal aid scheme was established.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hoon: No, because I must make some progress. The legal insurance market continues to develop and innovate. New insurance products specifically linked to conditional fees have come on to the market regularly since October 1997, when we announced our intention to expand the use of conditional fees. Only the other week a policy was launched by Royal Sun Alliance where the premium itself is paid at the end of the case, and only if the case is successful. That will be a significant addition to the policies that are available because it will give lawyers working under conditional fees insurance against losing fees if they are unsuccessful. The benefits for clients are obvious—as with their legal fees, the insurance premium will only have to be paid if the case is won. Thanks to our proposals, that premium will be paid for by the losing defendant.
We nevertheless accept that there may be a limited range of worthwhile cases in which it may be difficult for people to find lawyers to act under a conditional fee. In some exceptional personal injury cases the costs of investigating the strength of the case to the point at which a solicitor can decide whether to offer a conditional fee agreement may be very high. Similarly, some cases may be very expensive and may reach a point where the risk is too great for most firms to carry. I am confident that, as solicitors adapt to working under conditional fees, and as they receive the benefit of the uplifts as well as their costs for concluded cases, they will be able to carry those costs and risks. However to ensure that we do not leave people unable to bring worthwhile cases, we have provided powers in the Bill for the Lord Chancellor to provide by direction that assistance in generally excluded categories of case may be given in prescribed circumstances. We expect in particular to use those powers to support personal injury cases with exceptionally high investigative or total costs.
The criminal defence service will continue to provide assistance, advice and representation in all those criminal cases where the interests of justice require it. We also


expect, with the House's agreement, that the Legal Services Commission will itself employ lawyers to provide certain criminal defence services. It is not our intention to create a monolithic, wholly employed defence service. We foresee a mixed economy with both employed lawyers and lawyers in private practice, but the provisions to allow for direct employment to provide those services were removed in another place, largely at the urging of private sector lawyers. We will ask this House to reinstate them.
Most services funded by the Legal Services Commission for both the community legal service and the criminal defence service will be secured through contracts. Contracts are a flexible means of buying services. The Legal Services Commission will use that flexibility to secure the best possible balance of access, quality and price. In due course, especially in areas where volumes are high, I would expect to see much greater use of prices fixed in advance, rather than costs calculated at the end of cases at hourly rates, but we will proceed cautiously and build on experience, so that providers have time to adapt to change.
There is no evidence, as some have claimed, that lawyers will abandon the legal aid scheme rather than work under contracts. On the contrary, applications for franchises have flooded in over the past few months, and the Legal Aid Board now expects to grant at least 5,000 first-round contracts for family work and a roughly similar number of contracts for advice and assistance.
As for the legal professions themselves, we intend to tackle unfair restrictive practices. We believe it right in principle that suitably qualified lawyers should enjoy full rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. Previous attempts to extend rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation have been tortuous and have produced little of substance. A classic example is the proposal to extend the rights of employed solicitors. After six years of debate, consultation and advice—and yet more consultation, advice and debate—a very small package of additional rights was given to employed solicitors.

Mr. Edward Gamier: The Minister appears to have passed rather quickly from part I of the Bill to part III—he is now discussing much later provisions. It must be an oversight, but the Minister appears not to have dealt with clause 1. What is the Government's view on that?

Mr. Hoon: Clause 1 was introduced in another place, and hon. Members will wish to consider the matter in Committee. I anticipate that the Government will want to introduce amendments to replace clause 1—and no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman and I will have fun discussing exactly what will replace it. As clause 1 was not introduced by the Government, it need not necessarily detain us at this stage.
The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct—ACLEC—has been responsible for overseeing applications for extending the rights of audience. This Bill will abolish ACLEC and put in its place a new consultative panel with a simplified set of procedures. Although ACLEC has done some good work,

the system of which it is part has not succeeded to any great extent in furthering the objective set by Parliament of developing new or better ways of providing legal services with a wider choice of people providing them. The clause that would have allowed full rights of audience to be exercised by all suitably qualified lawyers—by those employed by the Government or other bodies, as much as by those in private practice—was removed in another place. I will ask the House to reinstate that clause.
The Government will introduce an amendment that will enable banisters working in solicitors' offices to exercise rights of audience on behalf of the solicitors' clients. At present, this is not allowed under the Bar's rules. There is also a provision that will allow Parliament to change rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation that are unduly restrictive. We hope not to have to use this power, but it will provide a dynamic for change in the future.
Other changes in the Bill deal with the administration and organisation of our courts. The existing system of civil appeals is convoluted, inconsistent, time-consuming and often expensive. The system is used to spin out cases in no one's interest. The Bill will reform the system and complement the existing programme of reforms in civil courts of first instance by applying the same underlying principle of proportionality.
The Bill also makes several changes to the organisation and management of magistrates courts, which hear 97 per cent. of all criminal cases. The Government have already embarked on a comprehensive programme to rationalise and modernise the administration of those courts. The Bill will facilitate the development of a more coherent geographical structure for the criminal justice system and help improve the management and efficiency of magistrates courts.

Ms Hazel Blears: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite the need to rationalise magistrates courts, he believes that access to justice should be delivered locally? If we are to involve magistrates courts in the partnership to tackle crime and disorder, it is crucial that justice is dispensed within the local area.

Mr. Hoon: I accept that point entirely, and nothing in the Bill will prevent the local administration of justice.
The Government intend to introduce several further amendments to the Bill. The first change concerns the handling of complaints against the legal professions—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) referred at the outset. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, which is an integral part of the Law Society, is clearly failing to deal adequately with complaints. It was set up in 1996 to deal with complaints of inadequate professional service and of serious misconduct by solicitors. The office is the most recent attempt by the Law Society to get right its complaints systems. It replaced the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, but, like previous attempts, it has not delivered sustained improvement. There is a good deal of concern among the public and on all sides of the House.

Mr. John Burnett: Information came to me that, last month alone, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors had to close down 27 law firms. I do not know whether the Minister was aware of


that. Do the Government believe that the OSS has sufficient resources to cope with that work and the growth in complaints against solicitors?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's point. If I explain the Government's intentions, I may satisfactorily answer his question. If not, I am sure that he will ask it again.
I understand that the legal services ombudsman is likely to report that the OSS has failed to make the necessary progress in the areas highlighted in her last report. She concluded that the OSS needed to resolve complaints speedily; achieve greater credibility in the eyes of complainants, and be seen to provide effective redress where appropriate. The greatest immediate concern is the backlog of 9,000 complaints—a backlog that is increasing. Complaints are not allocated to a case officer for some six months.
We shall therefore table amendments to ensure that the complaints systems of the Law Society and the other legal professions operate in the public interest. We are convinced that we need to extend statutory provision in that area as a matter of urgency.
We propose to establish a new post with the responsibility for setting targets for complaints handling and making recommendations about complaints systems. It will have powers to ensure that legitimate expectations about complaints handling are met. However, we are aware of the efforts that the Law Society is making to put its house in order, so the new powers will be held by an entirely new office. That office might be held by the ombudsman, but no decision has yet been made.

Mr. Bercow: Obviously, hon. Members will want to scrutinise in detail the Government's new proposals for the replacement of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. Does the Minister accept that many Conservative Members look forward with interest to those proposals and agree with him that the present arrangements are entirely unsatisfactory? I have testimony to that fact from the sad experience of Mr. and Mrs. Philip Stanton from Shabbington in my constituency. In seeking to pursue a claim against their former solicitors, they have had their retirement ruined and suffered extraordinary delay. They will certainly welcome a suggestion that the OSS should be replaced.

Mr. Hoon: I would not want to be accused of misleading the House in any way, so I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we intend not to replace the OSS but to make it subject to stringent standards and safeguards in handling complaints. I hope that I have provided the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman's constituents clearly require.

Mr. John Healey: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the move towards independent scrutiny and a statutory base for the handling of complaints against solicitors will be warmly welcomed by Labour Members as well as by Conservative Members? Our experience, like that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), is that the OSS is slow and is not taken seriously enough by the profession.

Mr. Hoon: I am aware of the concern about complaints handling felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

As I have made clear to the OSS over the months, one of the most effective tests of whether it is dealing satisfactorily with complaints is the number of letters that are forwarded to me by Members of the House, and that number is causing the Government concern.
The Government have every confidence in the ombudsman. Her office will continue to be needed and her powers will be strengthened. At present, when she considers a complaint referred to her after it has been dealt with by the relevant professional body, she has the power only to make non-binding recommendations about compensation which are sometimes ignored. In future, she will have the option of making binding determinations that will have to be paid by the lawyers in default.
We are also prepared to grant the Law Society's request for additional powers. Those will, in particular, enable the Law Society to play its part in controlling unscrupulous immigration advisers. That was a commitment in our manifesto and is part of the Immigration and Asylum Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought before the House.
The Government intend also to introduce a modest measure to ensure that the full cost of administering the annual competition for Queen's Counsel is met by those applying and not, as at present, paid for by the taxpayer. Under current legislation, the Lord Chancellor's Department has no power to charge for that time-consuming and costly process, which, in 1998, is estimated to have cost the taxpayer about £120,000. That situation is contrary to our policy on full cost recovery and constitutes a public subsidy for a system of promotion for a profession that hardly needs taxpayers' assistance.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to abolishing QCs?

Mr. Hoon: We have certainly given some thought to it.
We shall also table amendments to enable the courts to check whether other Government agencies—such as the Department of Social Security, the police or local authorities—hold information on the whereabouts of a "missing" fine defaulter or community service dodger. That will remove one of the biggest obstacles to effective enforcement once responsibility for warrant execution is transferred from the police to magistrates courts. It is not acceptable that those who have been convicted of an offence and who owe a debt to society should be able to get away with their crimes, especially when the taxpayer has to foot the bill, and when an up-to-date address may well be held in other Government records.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Hoon: I shall not give way again; I am sorry.
Barriers to information sharing contributed to the fact that, at the end of 1997, some ₣70 million in fines was unpaid. That undermines the effectiveness of fines as a sentence. The information to be exchanged will be tightly limited to those details that will allow the offender's whereabouts to be traced—essentially the name, last known address and date of birth. It will be used for the specific purpose of tracing an individual so that a warrant may be executed. Wider disclosure will be forbidden. Improved information sharing will lead to more


cost-effective warrant enforcement as well as helping to restore public confidence in fines and community penalties.

Mr. Grieve: I can now ask the question that I was trying to ask a moment ago. If we are transferring the execution of warrants outside the police force, does the Minister agree that those who will carry out the execution of those warrants, who will be certificated bailiffs, will need adequate powers of arrest if they are to discharge their functions properly?

Mr. Hoon: We may have to consider that in Committee. These matters have only recently been developed, and the changes have only recently been worked out, so we can consider that when the Bill proceeds, as I hope that it will, into Committee.
I hope that I have made it clear that the proposals in the Bill are not motivated by any simplistic effort to cut costs. The Government are not out to harm the legal professions. What we want is to create a system of justice that better meets the needs of our people—a system that is accessible to all; that is quick, of high quality, inexpensive, proportionate to the issue at hand and, above all else, fair.
To that end, we shall direct taxpayers' money to the areas of highest priority—to those people who most need help and advice. We will not tolerate unjustified restrictive practices. We will ensure that citizens receive the best possible legal and advice services, whether they pay themselves, they are insured or they are assisted by the state. We shall continue to ensure that those whose liberty is at stake receive appropriate assistance. We want to transform our legal services so that they can best meet the challenges of the next century.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Edward Gander: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
`this House declines to give the Access to Justice Bill [Lords] a Second Reading because it is likely to reduce access to justice as a result of removing legal aid in civil cases and is likely to increase the costs of litigation as a result of the 100 per cent. uplift in fees under conditional fee arrangements, because the Bill contains no detailed costings or description of the proposed functions of the Legal Services Commission and imposes no statutory restrictions on the ambit of the Criminal Defence Service or the extent to which the Crown Prosecution Service can appear in the Crown Courts, because a system of wholly state-employed prosecutors and defenders creates the danger of miscarriages of justice, and because the Bill grants to the Lord Chancellor constitutionally unprecedented powers unilaterally to alter the rules of the independent legal profession.'
I must declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar. I also wish to place on the record my thanks for the help that I have had in preparing my thoughts—but they are my thoughts—for this debate from the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, Liberty, Justice, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and from the many individuals from within and outside the legal profession, including my right hon. and learned

Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), and in consumer groups, who have expressed concern about the Bill's contents.
I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, who led for the Opposition in the other place where the Bill began its life, and to the many other noble, and noble and learned Lords, of all parties and of none, who, in stark contrast to the contributions from the Government in and outside Parliament, raised the debate to the level that the subject deserves.
In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Kingsland described the Bill as a skeleton Bill. On Second Reading, he said that the Bill contained no fewer than 17 new powers for the Lord Chancellor to exercise, either in the form of statutory instruments or in the form of directions. My noble and charitable Friend acquitted the Lord Chancellor of having drafted the Bill in this form because he had not yet made up his mind what to put into it. He assumed that the Lord Chancellor had the terms of the Bill in his head, and that the homework would be easy to complete by January 1999, when the Bill went into Committee in the other place. As it is now the middle of April and we have heard very little more from either the Lord Chancellor or his Minister in the House of Commons, I advise hon. Members to be a little less charitable today.
My noble Friend Lord Kingsland called the Bill a skeleton. Lord Goodhart saw it as three separate Bills. Part IV deals with the new arrangements for appeals, and is in reality an administration of justice Bill. Parts V and VI are a magistrates courts Bill. Those parts of the Bill are largely uncontroversial, and, although they will need to be examined carefully in Committee, I suspect that they will not lead to great arguments of principle. Like, I believe, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), Conservative Members want to ensure that the local delivery of justice is not merely maintained but enhanced, especially in small towns and rural areas.
I welcome the unification of the stipendiary Bench, although I question whether we need to change "stipendiary magistrates", a term that everyone understands, to "district judges (magistrates' courts)", which is longer and no clearer.
Part II is devoted to Scotland, and I shall leave the Scots among us to grapple with it.
Several parts of the Bill, although important, need not be dealt with now, and can be discussed more fully in Committee. What is of more immediate concern is the Government's approach to the reform—indeed, the effective abolition in most areas of civil law—of legal aid, and what will replace it; the Government's policy with regard to setting up the community legal service and the criminal defence service under the Legal Services Commission; and the Government's decision to give the Lord Chancellor—this Lord Chancellor—unprecedented powers to alter the rules of the hitherto independent legal professions. It is on those aspects in particular that the Opposition take issue with the Government, and it is because of the deficiencies and dangers we fear their plans involve that we shall ask the House to support our amendment tonight.
Our concerns focus on parts I and III of the Bill, which deal with legal services and constitute the first of the Bills within a Bill. The Government have made much use of the English language: not since Orwell wrote "1984" have


the public seen a Government make such good use of it. In the field of law reform, they have shown again that they know all there is to be known about manipulating the language; but what they know about what is right and what is wrong, and about what is in the interests of the public whom they govern and what is not, is quite another matter.
In calling this the Access to Justice Bill, the Government hoped to fool us into thinking that that was what it would achieve. In calling their White Paper "Modernising Justice", they fondly hoped we would believe that that was what was planned and would happen. In spending tens of thousands of pounds of public money on pamphlets repeating mantras designed by advertising executives, they feel sure that their message will not be lost. Ministers believe that, through the giving of breathless interviews to the lay and professional press, they are winning the arguments. They will, of course, win the votes, but they show no signs of winning the arguments.
Since the beginning of the debate on legal reform, the Lord Chancellor has known the nature of the problem with which he must deal. As long ago as October 1987, when he addressed the Law Society at its Cardiff conference, he said that the legal aid budget had become a leviathan with a ferocious appetite, and that litigation was too expensive for both the legally aided and the unassisted litigant. He was right. The budget had grown over the past 10 years—although anyone listening to the same man speaking as shadow Lord Chancellor in the years before the last general election would have heard nothing but praise for the Labour legal aid system, and deep scepticism about what the proposals in the Bill and the Lord Chancellor's other reforms now include.
Where the Lord Chancellor was wrong and ill advised was in his remedy to deal with the problem: his proposal to abolish legal aid across the board, save in criminal cases, and to replace it with conditional fee arrangements by 1 April 1998. No doubt it pleased the Treasury to hear those plans; no doubt it pleased the tabloids, and perhaps it pleased the less thoughtful of our Members of Parliament, to hear that at last a Lord Chancellor was taking money away from those whom they saw as members of an overpaid and selfish legal profession, rather than handing them more and more of the taxpayer's hard-earned cash. Nevertheless, the proposal was, and in large part remains, disastrous—not for the Treasury, which can divert any money saved by cutting taxes or increasing other public expenditure; not, perhaps, for the well-off and the comfortable, who have always been able to choose how to spend their money, and to sue or not to sue. For whom, then?
The Government's reforms are badly flawed, even in their greatly revised form following their savaging by far better lawyers than me, far more knowledgeable social scientists than I could ever aspire to be and those much better to articulate the concerns of the many rather than the few. They are politically inept and economically illiterate, and no matter what the Government may intend, they will lead to a denial of access to justice for a huge swathe of the public.

Ms Blears: If, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the Government's proposals are illiterate and incompetent, will he enlighten the House by telling us what he would

propose to ensure that the thousands of people in my constituency who are currently ineligible for legal aid can get advice, assistance and access to justice?

Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Lady had listened to what her hon. Friend the Minister said, she would not have been deeply impressed by the way in which the Government are preparing to take legal aid away from the very constituents whom she wants to assist. In order to help those just above the legal aid limit, the Government propose to take legal aid away from those at present below the limit.
If the hon. Lady supports such a policy, no doubt she will troop through the Lobby along with all the other whipped Members of her party this evening. However, I advise her to listen carefully to what I and my hon. Friends will say, and indeed to some of her own hon. Friends, I suspect. She may well be persuaded that what the Government are proposing—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has never had to bother with legal aid limits, but I believe that the hon. Member for Salford has a deep concern about the people in her constituency who are well below the limits currently applicable to legal aid.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) asked the Minister a moment ago what research the Lord Chancellor's Department had done. I asked that question way back in November 1997, and I did not get much of an answer then. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not get an answer just now. Did the Lord Chancellor's Department consult the Department of Social Security, the Home Office, the Attorney-General's chambers, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office or the Northern Ireland Office to see what effects the planned reforms would have for their clients, their budgets and their policies?
Did the Lord Chancellor's Department pay any attention to the research already done by others into conditional fee arrangements? Did it even ask its own Back Benchers how they would react to the wholesale demolition of the welfare state, which they fondly believe they have been elected to defend? Did it consult the professions and consumer groups? No, not at all.
I intend to consult the profession,
said the Lord Chancellor in October 1997. He continued:
Change is on the way, and the best thing to do with change is to manage it through consultation and in the spirit of consultation.
There has since then been no consultation in any sense that could be recognised by users of ordinary English. The term "a Lord Chancellor's Department consultation exercise" has become an accepted oxymoron. Any changes that have come about, any improvements to the Government's plans between October 1997 and today have not been the result of consultation by Ministers. They have been forced on the Government who, since October 1997, have been in a more or less continual and chaotic retreat in the face of reasoned arguments from the groups and individuals whom I mentioned at the outset.
The Minister cut a pretty lonely figure when he spoke in support of the Government's reforms in November 1997. He was surprised and disappointed, but he should not have been. It is clear that the Government paid little heed to the research carried out by the Policy Studies Institute and published under the title, "The Price of Success—Lawyers, Clients and Conditional Fees" in September 1997.
It is equally clear that the Government's approach to the subject since then has been inadequate. We have seen a continuing failure to look for, let alone to look at, the evidence. We have seen a Minister in this House who has become increasingly bored with his job and the difficult issues that it requires him to deal with. We have seen from the outset an incoherent policy ineptly advanced with increasing incoherence and desperation.
It took my party 18 years in government to achieve what the present Government have managed in 18 months—to unite all their enemies against them. In this field of public policy, that alliance has been consolidated by the Government's actions and their high-handedness. It is stronger now than it has ever been.
One has only to look at clause 1 to find out why. Is it not interesting that until reminded of the existence of clause 1, the Minister did not think it was appropriate to concern himself with it? The clause is headed "Principles" and sets out the principles applicable to part I of the Bill. Part I sets up the Legal Services Commission and its two subsidiary bodies, the community legal service and the criminal defence service. Whereas most people who have given the Bill some thought have applauded the introduction of the objectives in clause 1(2) by the combined votes of Cross-Bench and Opposition peers, the Lord Chancellor is so devoid of imagination or generosity or both that he can do no more than sneer. He grandly calls the objectives and the clause no more than a gimmick.
Let us examine for a moment what the Lord Chancellor has dismissed as a gimmick. Clause 1(2) says:
The objectives are—

(a) that persons have access to legal services and the machinery of justice which they would otherwise be unable to obtain on account of their means;
(b) that such access is not to be impaired on account of disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) or the place in England and Wales where any legal services are sought;
(c) that legal services and facilities of high quality be available such that disputes may be resolved, and proceedings determined, expeditiously, fairly and with the parties placed on an equal footing."

Is any Labour Member prepared to stand up now and defend the Lord Chancellor's description of those objectives as a gimmick? Which of them will be prepared to vote for the deletion of clause 1, which the Minister has promised, and to explain why to the queue outside their local law centre or a citizens advice bureau in their constituency? Which of them will go to the waiting room of an inner-city legal aid solicitor's firm to tell their disabled, elderly or young but injured constituents or their carers that they supported the removal of the clause, and explain why?
Clause 1 was passed by a majority of 71 in the other place. Is a larger majority of the whipped, the thoughtless and the ambitious prepared to do away with it and all that it represents? Before they do so, perhaps Labour Members should listen to the words of Ashley Holmes of the Consumers Association, Dan Brennan, the chairman of the General Council of the Bar, Vicki Chapman, the policy director of the Legal Action Group and Michael Mathews, the president of the Law Society. On 15 March, they wrote to The Times as follows:

We are dismayed that the Lord Chancellor's Department has dismissed as a 'gimmick' an important new clause in the Access to Justice Bill, which has its third reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday.
The clause was passed in the Lords last month by a majority of 71. It sets the Government the objective of ensuring that legal aid is available to those without means; of protecting individuals against discrimination on the basis of disability or where they live; and ensuring that the legally aided party is placed on an equal footing relative to the other side. Having promised to set its own objectives, the Government has tabled proposals which are plainly inadequate.
The Lord Chancellor is planning to have these safeguards struck out in the Commons, despite the fact that the equal treatment of people before the law has been central to the thinking behind our system of legal aid since its inception some fifty years ago.
The requirement that legal aid should be subject to available resources does not remove the need to set objectives for spending those resources. If the Lord Chancellor believes that such a clause is 'quite unrealistic', then we must conclude that from now on those on legal aid can be expected to receive a second-class service.
Legislators put 'objectives' clauses in Bills for good reasons: to ensure that the executive is bound to deliver in practice what it regularly promises in its political rhetoric.
A law without clear objectives may meet the government interest. Only a law with objectives meets the public interest.
That argument would be less strong if objectives clauses were foreign to modern legislation, but they are not. They are not even foreign to this Government's legislation. The Food Standards Agency Bill has an objectives clause. The financial services and markets Bill has an objectives clause. The Legal Aid Board—a Government agency—has recognised since 1995 the need to pay heed to the special needs of the disabled under the green form scheme.
Even the new civil procedure rules, which will come into effect on 26 April, have a set of objectives at rule 1, which says:

"(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.
(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable—

(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate—
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(i) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases."


I do not think that the Government can quarrel with those objectives. I also do not see any grounds for them to criticise the objectives in clause 1.
Why are the Government not prepared to include in the Bill the desirable, civilised and humane objectives of ensuring access to justice for the poor, the disabled and those living in remote or inner-city areas—access that will allow them equality of arms in their claims against defendant corporations which are backed by insurers, against Government Departments and against public authorities? Placing those people on an equal footing does


not mean paying their publicly funded lawyers at the same rate as the defendant's lawyers, but means giving the publicly funded system sufficient money to attract lawyers of quality and experience to do the work.

Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking for 16 minutes. Rightly, he has said why he opposes the Bill, but surely he also has to say what the Conservative party would do to improve services for people who are not able to get access to justice.

Mr. Garnier: I am not sure how much of this or earlier debates the hon. Gentleman has been listening to, but clearly he is volunteering to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill. I hope to see him take a full part in it.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gamier: No, because I am still answering the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), if the hon. Gentleman would care to resume his seat.
In 1990 or thereabouts, the previous Government introduced the ability of parties in certain cases to have conditional fee arrangements. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire said in an intervention to the Minister, the Conservative party has no objection to CFAs. What Conservative Members object to is the wholesale removal of legal aid and its replacement by CFAs as though that were the answer to the problem; it is not.
We suggest—and I invite the Minister to agree—that CFAs should be allowed to run alongside the present legal aid arrangements. There is no justice in assisting people just above the legal aid limits by introducing CFAs, but destroying the chances of those below the current legal aid limits, forcing them to—

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gamier: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) as he was so keen.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept that, in government, his party consistently and progressively tightened eligibility for legal aid, so that fewer and fewer people could receive it? Does he accept that that is no answer to the problem of how one contains public expenditure in the sector? Does he not accept that the Government are at least prepared to grasp the nettle and to match services to actual need in a proper, strategic way?

Mr. Garnier: It seems that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that because, in his opinion, we got it wrong, his Government can get it wrong as well. That is not an answer to any suggestion that has been made this afternoon.
Statutory objectives can be tested openly, but dispassionately in courts of law, as well as subjected to public opinion and scrutiny in the press. If what the Government claim they require for the public is what they are providing under the Bill, they have nothing to fear

from clause 1. It is no gimmick; it is absurd to say so. I am not sure that the Minister convinced himself when he responded to the intervention.
If the wording of the clause that was drafted by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who is incontrovertibly a world-class lawyer, does not meet the Minister's high standards of clarity and transparency after his somewhat less glittering career at the law, let him say so and come forward with a better idea. The Government's proposals will not increase or improve access to justice; they will inhibit it and for no good reason.
A huge series of questions hangs over the CLS—the community legal service. It is likely to be overly bureaucratic. How much money will be spent on employing civil servants under the control of the Lord Chancellor and how many of them will there be? Money that has been, and should be, devoted to providing access to law, to advice and to representation for those who are unable to pay for it themselves will not be available.
The position is made worse by the fact that CFAs are being foisted on to the public more or less wholesale as the only replacement for legal aid in civil cases. As I have said, we do not object to the introduction of CFAs as long as they are introduced alongside legal aid, and as long as the evidence of their success or failure as funding instruments for civil litigation in a wide range of cases is assessed after proper study.

Mr. Dismore: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that CFAs are not the only alternative to legal aid? There are private insurance schemes, trade union schemes and many other ways of funding cases. Turning to his alternative suggestion of CFAs and legal aid working together, how will he get around the problem of adverse selection?

Mr. Garner: I quite agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman made in the preamble to his question and I look forward to other funding instruments such as trade union support, which have been in existence for some time. The hon. Gentleman will have to educate me about the process of adverse selection. No doubt it is one of the jargon words that spill off his tongue easily, but it is not a concept with which I am familiar.

Ms Blears: It is cherry picking.

Mr. Garner: If it is cherry picking, we all know the answer as that point was addressed by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Perhaps the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) should have listened to his hon. Friend.
Why kill off legal aid for personal injury cases when, according to the hon. Member for Hendon, who is a former personal injury solicitor, that part of the legal aid budget as good as makes a profit for the Treasury? If it does not, the net cost is minuscule compared with the overall legal aid budget of £1.6 billion, to which the Minister averted. Why force people to take up CFAs, which have their place, but are not the answer to every type of litigation, when there is a marked dearth of insurance products to underpin them?
The Minister's answers to my written parliamentary questions about the availability of insurance and to questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the


Member for North-East Bedfordshire are woefully lacking in detail. His understanding of the finances of small to medium-sized firms of solicitors is worrying.
In 1997, the Lord Chancellor's Department was talking confidently about the insurance industry stepping into the breach left by the abolition of legal aid.

Mr. Dismore: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen the publication "Litigation Funding". It indicates that nine different insurance schemes are already available for CFAs. I do not know whether he has read it, but it might enlighten him on that point.

Mr. Garner: The hon. Gentleman must have X-ray eyes as I was about to enlighten the House, if that is the right expression, with some quotations from that magazine.
In 1997, the Lord Chancellor's Department was talking constantly about the insurance industry stepping into the breach. However, I suggest that the Department had not bothered to ask the industry before making such statements. One can hardly fault the industry for being a little less enthusiastic than the Government about the job in question. Realising that they had gone far too far, the Government have now come up with a new ploy which the Minister mentioned.
Apparently, there will now be a new type of insurance product—an after-the-event policy which will solve the problem of clients being unable to afford the premium. I gather that it is the Minister's brainchild. It is called the only-if-you-win policy, and it is quite simple. If the case is won, the premium is paid out of the client's winnings; if the case is lost, the client does not have to pay. So we are to have no win, no fee CFAs for legal fees and no win, no premium insurance to underpin the CFAs.
The Minister says that everything is going well. In a quote that the hon. Member for Hendon was probably not going to use, he said:
The message that I am getting from insurers is that things are going well.
Perhaps the teacups that he is looking into do not contain tea leaves because Mr. James Innes, the chairman of Abbey Legal Protection, is somewhat surprised by the Minister and asks:
Which insurers are giving him this message?
He continues:
In our view conditional fee insurance has not been proved to be totally workable from the industry's point of view.
On the Minister's only-if-you-win ploy, he says:
We would not even entertain the idea.
Clauses 29 and 30 may have been drafted hopefully, but in ignorance of the real world.
It is not just on that account that the Bill and the Government's wider proposals will impede access to justice. The position of the community legal service is made worse by the fact that the civil side of the publicly funded system will get only what is left over after the criminal defence service has had its fill.
Last month, the Lord Chancellor wrote in The House magazine:

The establishment of the Community Legal Service lies at the heart of the Bill. The CLS will be a cornerstone in protecting everyone's basic rights. My long-term vision is of a comprehensive network of legal advice points across England and Wales"—
as if justice were to be available like cash from the wall of a bank.
They will deliver quality legal information and advice to the disadvantaged and socially excluded in areas of law which most directly affect their everyday lives.
I suggest that we should be wary of Lord Chancellors who have long-term visions as that suggests that they may not be concentrating fully on what they are doing now.
In Committee in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said that the truth was that the only money that was left for civil legal aid was what was left over after the requirements of criminal legal aid had been met, as those requirements were underpinned, as they should be, by international obligations. Neither I nor, I suspect, any Opposition Member needs an international convention to tell us what is right and what is wrong. That is embedded in the very marrow of our bones.
Of course the criminal defendant whose liberty and reputation are at risk should have unhindered access to advice and representation. If he cannot pay for that himself, he should have public assistance to do so; but he should not have to get advice and representation from a nationalised criminal defence service—from state-employed careerists. That is all the more true when one bears in mind that the prosecutor could now be a civil service colleague of the defence lawyer.
In the other place, on Second Reading, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws said:
The idea of introducing a criminal public defender system into Britain fills me with great alarm.
It should fill others with great alarm, too. She knows how such a system works in the United States and is not impressed. No doubt, she said, it would be cost efficient,
But surely in justice we are concerned with more than that? The horrifying levels of plea bargaining in the United States will almost certainly visit themselves upon our courts if such a system is introduced.
What happens with such a system? The young and the older but less able work within it; the turnover is incredibly high and lawyers quickly become beaten down. Collusion becomes part of the system—collusion between lawyers … prosecution and defence, with the court in order to get through the bulk of cases as quickly as possible."—[Ofcial Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1157-58.]
The noble Baroness also asked a question that, so far, the Government have failed satisfactorily to answer: might not the Lord Chancellor be creating a legacy, namely a system that can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor?

Mr. Mitchell: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the New Zealand commission on legal services, which examined public defender services in California and Hong Kong, decided that they were the most effective means of providing legal defence for the mass of people in metropolitan societies, where the population was sufficiently concentrated to produce economies of scale and great efficiency?

Mr. Garnier: Although that may or may not be true in metropolitan societies—such a system is current in Canada and seems to work reasonably well—the position


being advanced by the Government does not meet the concerns of the hon. Gentleman. It certainly does not meet my concerns or those of my hon. Friends.
Our concerns are made worse by schedule 5 and part III—this is, indeed, a Bill of schedules, which take up as much print as the rest of the Bill. Schedule 5 and part III of the Bill would give the Executive control of the courts and undermine the separation of powers under the constitution. It used to be uncontroversial to say that, in a free society, just as the judiciary had to be independent, the Bar and the advocate had to be independent. The Executive must be denied control of the core functions of the legal professions, which service through advocacy the courts that the judiciary operates.
I should like briefly to quote from a speech made last year by Mr. Sydney Kentridge QC, a respected member of the Bars of both England and Wales and South Africa. He said that
during the years of apartheid in South Africa, there were frequent threats from the Government to place the Bar under the control of a central council with Government-nominated members. This proposal was consistently and successfully resisted by the whole of the Bar, including the many members who normally supported the Government in its policies and its legislation. It was well understood that to remove the control of the profession from the provincial Bar Councils and the General Council of the Bar would have meant the end of the independence of the profession. What was also well understood was that the independence of the Bench was inextricably linked with the independence of the Bar.
That advice and the hundreds of years of good sense that those words represent are all to go because this Lord Chancellor, this Minister and this Government equate the undermining of freedom and justice under the rule of law and the constitution with "streamlining".
In the Government's explanatory notes to the Bill, we find the words:
This power will enable the Lord Chancellor to change on his own initiative unreasonable or restrictive rules on the part of a professional body.
Those words may be soothing and reassuring, but the underlying message is both menacing and distinctly chilling.
With fewer firms providing legal services—estimates suggest that the number of legal aid firms will decrease from more than 11,000 to about 3,000—and with those remaining being concentrated in the larger conurbations remote from rural and provincial England and Wales, firms will be more selective in their choice of client and will not have the resources to assist the needy. Now, the current jargon of "adverse selection" comes rapidly to mind.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Would my hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to go back to that passage that he quoted concerning the control of the Bar? Would he remind me whether the word "unreasonable" occurred in that passage? If so, would he then be kind enough to give way to me again?

Mr. Garnier: It entirely depends why. I do not want to detain the House, as I have taken up a good deal of time already. However, Mr. Kentridge said that the independence of the judiciary—which is vital in a free society, as was recognised even in apartheid South Africa—depends on the independence of the legal professions that appear as advocates before it. Without an

independent advocates' profession—free of the control of the Executive through the office of the Lord Chancellor—freedom under the law in terms of the constitution as we know and understand it is very much imperilled. Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?

Mr. Taylor: No. My hon. and learned Friend has clarified the matter.

Mr. Garnier: I was saying that there will be fewer legal aid firms providing advice, and that they will be concentrated in the conurbations. That is a product of a policy that will prove to be socially divisive. It is a policy for the few, not the many. It is a policy made by new Labour.
It is said that the Lord Chancellor hopes to see his name inscribed on the pediment of a great public building—perhaps a palace of justice—as a fitting memorial to his work. I wish him well in that ambition—as I am sure we all do—but I fear that if the Bill goes through as he would have it, he will not find his name picked out in gold on the Strand, but scratched angrily on the walls of every benefits office in the country.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In a debate on access to justice, I suppose that lawyers are expected to declare an interest. I do so, although I hope that hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who has now left theChamber—will accept that even barristers and solicitors sometimes can have a concern for the justice system that is not motivated by special pleading.
Whatever views one may have about the various individual measures in the Bill, it must be said realistically that the time had come for a fundamental review of the operation of the justice system and, in particular, the legal aid system. The present legal aid system goes back to an Act of 1949: 50 years ago. It would be trite—and wasteful of the time of the House—to say that society has changed beyond recognition since then. Those of us who are lawyers sometimes ignore the effect of economic forces on legal jurisprudence and the administration of justice.
Enormous economic changes, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, have put pressure on the legal system, practitioners and Governments that could not have been envisaged way back in 1949. Governments, society and commerce are now structured to serve the citizen and the consumer, and their ever-burgeoning rights. Governments encourage citizens to take up their rights and, when rights are taken up—and sometimes denied—they can be enforced only by seeking redress through the courts. That costs money.
The growth of personal injury actions, and actions for professional and medical negligence, reflects what has been happening, especially in the late 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Since I started at the Bar in the 1960s, there has been an amazing growth in the judicial review system which enables people to challenge the decisions made by public bodies.
One of the Labour Government's first acts was to enshrine the European convention on human rights into the law of the United Kingdom, and that will inevitably lead to more court action, more citizens seeking to enforce


more rights, and more demands on public funds. I missed the statement, but I am told that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary postponed the operation of that legislation for a short time. I think that he said that the judges need to be educated. In some ways, human rights legislation bridges the legal and the political. Perhaps the judges need to be put on message. I do not know.
I believe that my right hon. Friend said that we must be careful because sharp lawyers could pull the wool over the eyes of the judges who have to administer the convention. Perhaps an underlying reason for the postponement is the cost that is bound to accrue to the legal aid system.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned the choice of rights that Governments make in the financing of court action. Fashionable choices benefit and unfashionable ones recede. Perhaps personal injury and professional negligence cases are not so fashionable any more, as other rights become more politically correct and have to be financed, partly by Government.
There are economic pressures on the traditional family. There is pressure on both parents of small children to go out to work and there is no doubt that that has led to an increase in the legal aid budget for family litigation and matrimonial cases. The Library's notes on the Bill point out that cases involving children's rights now absorb about a quarter of the net spending on civil legal aid. The cost of funding welfare, immigration and employment rights cases in the higher courts also creates pressures.
I disagree with some of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, but I agree that, frankly, something had to be done. Whatever view one takes on conditional fees and on contracting out and franchising, the present system could not have been allowed to continue. Whatever system is put in place will not be perfect and there will always be pluses and minuses.
Having paid a back-handed compliment to my hon. Friend the Minister, perhaps I can devote the rest of my speech to an expression of my profound reservation about one aspect of the Bill: the proposals on the criminal justice system. Clauses 13 and 14 contain proposals to set up what is in effect a state defence unit, a service to mirror the Crown Prosecution Service. I do not know why any Government would want to do that, but apparently it will be the Tweedledum to the Tweedledee of the CPS, the state prosecution service that, up to now, has not covered itself in glory.
The Bill originally contained powers to enable the Government to employ state advocates to defend those accused of crimes, as well as a power to use a franchise to contract independent advocates. As my hon. Friend said, the House of Lords was not too happy with that suggestion in respect of state employees. The Lord Chancellor tried to convince the other place that everything would be all right; there would be a mix of independent advocates and state-employed advocates defending those accused of crime. Quite sensibly, Members of the other place were not impressed by the Lord Chancellor's arguments, or assured by his assurances. As I understand it, they removed from the Bill the power to enable state employees to be used as advocates in the new criminal defence service. I believe that the House of Lords was right to do that.
I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister would say, "All right then, we will call it a day", but not at all. As he has said, the Government are determined to drive this measure through and put that power back into the legislation. While preparing my speech for the debate, I came across a document from the Home Office that I received recently; it refers to a business plan for the criminal justice system. In paragraph 5.3.19, it reiterates the plan for a state defence system with state defence advocates. The document is most interesting.

Dr. Lynda Clark: Would my right hon. Friend have the same objection if the scheme were entirely voluntary? In these days of consumer choice, if defendants wished to use a state defence system, what would be my right hon. Friend's objection to that?

Mr. Davies: I should still object to a state defence system. It is preferable for advocates to be independent of the state. That may be an old-fashioned view—I accept that entirely—but I believe that, within the criminal justice system, it is certainly better that advocates who defend people and their liberty should be independent of the state.
I cannot resist turning back to the document. It is described as an example of joined-up Government. Indeed, we have a joined-up photograph—the first that I have seen. The photograph is of—if I may borrow my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's phrase—three sharp lawyers: the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are elbow to elbow and shoulder to shoulder, but I notice that my right hon. and learned, and very good, Friend the Attorney-General is elbow to elbow with them, but not shoulder to shoulder. I do not know whether that makes him a sharper Welsh lawyer than the other two—my hon. Friend the Minister may agree, or he may hedge his bets. Clearly, the Government are determined that this joined-up proposal will provide us with a state defence system.
My hon. Friend will say—as he and the Lord Chancellor have said—that there will be a mix; there will be some state employees, and other employees will be under contract. However, the whole history of Government, especially Governments in these perhaps more authoritarian times, shows that Governments—of whatever persuasion—will try to extend their control. If that power were reintroduced, we would find that, gradually, there were more state employees and fewer independent advocates operating in the criminal justice system. The state employees will have mixed duties; they will have a duty—as they should—to their employer. No doubt, they will try to balance that duty with their duty to the criminally accused. They will be subjected to all those instruments of bureaucratic control that we see these days: the codes of conduct; the rules of best practice; the guidelines that are not binding but are binding; the pressure to settle cases; and of course the ubiquitous and inevitable cash limits. That is how it will be in the state defence system.
The criminal justice system is a creature of the state. By its nature, it must be so. However, I believe in two old-fashioned concepts—checks and balances—of which we hear little these days. The presence of independent advocates—solicitors or banisters—whose primary duty is to the accused and the court, would be the best check and balance in the criminal justice system.
Like most of us, I have never been accused of a criminal offence. People who are accused are very lonely. Once arrested, a person goes to a state police station where he is surrounded by state police. Under the present system, an independent duty solicitor will try to assist the accused. When he is charged, another independent solicitor may prepare his defence.
Under the proposed system, more and more advocates will become state advocates, and the duty solicitor will be a state solicitor, as will the solicitor preparing the defence. If a case goes to a magistrates court at present, there is a state prosecutor, but the defence advocate is independent. When the system is changed, the defence advocate will be a state advocate. That is not sensible.
At Crown courts, at present, independent advocates prosecute. When rights of audience are extended, most, if not all, prosecutors will be state prosecutors. If we move gradually to a state defence system, most, if not all, those who defend people accused of crime will also be employed by the state. The state will have complete control of the criminal justice system.
Then there are the judges. They are state employees, even if they are high-class employees. However, they are independent, partly because they are drawn from the ranks of independent criminal advocates. As the state encroaches gradually into advocacy in criminal cases, where will the judges come from? They will be drawn from advocates who have prosecuted or defended for the state, or done both. Perhaps 90 or 95 per cent. of judges will have done nothing all their lives but prosecute or defend for the state. That is not proper in what, perhaps optimistically, I hope will remain a liberal democracy.
What about books? Most books on procedure and evidence What about books? Most books on procedure and evidence—more important in criminal cases than in civil—are written, as they must be, by practitioners. In future, new editions will be written by state advocates, be they prosecutors, defenders or judges. The whole criminal justice system will be tied to the state with none of the checks and balances that I think desirable in a western liberal democratic society.

Mr. Martin Linton: Like me, my right hon. Friend is paid a monthly salary through the state. Does that make him any less independent as a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Davies: No, it does not, but, as a Member of Parliament, I am not concerned with the liberty of others every day in the criminal courts. It is extremely important that the duty should be a duty to the client. In any case, as a Member of Parliament, I am not employed by the state, I hold an office—but we shall leave that aside. I am old fashioned enough to believe that an employee has a duty to his employer. An advocate with a duty to his employer will also have a duty, rightly, to his client, as well as a duty to the court. I do not believe that it is always possible to balance all those duties.
I see no need for the new system. My right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced what is in the main a good Bill, and I do not object to it in general, but I do not see why they have to try to create a state defence system staffed mainly by state employees.

Dr. Lynda Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conflict that he foresees between contractual duties

and the duty to the court and the client are anticipated in the Bill, which makes it plain that the overriding duty of any practitioner is to the interests of justice, not to the contractual duties that he may have as an emplopyee?

Mr. Davies: Of course, but life is not quite like that. A young person working in a state defence service will have conflicts between duty to the employers, duty to the client and duty to the court. I do not understand why it is necessary to create those conflicts, and I cannot understand why my hon. and learned Friend seems to be supporting the idea.
There is no need for such a system. We could easily have a criminal defence system without making advocates employees of the court. I repeat my hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will change their minds. The Bill is not a bad Bill; it applies to a difficult situation and must have been difficult to draft. None the less, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think again and will not reincorporate into the Bill the power that the House of Lords threw out.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I begin by referring to the concerns expressed by one of my constituents, a lady solicitor specialising in personal injury work, because what she says encapsulates several concerns that many of us—not only Conservative Members but, as we shall no doubt hear later, Members from other parties, too—have about the Government's proposals.
My constituent, Carole Green, wrote as follows:
I am writing with regards to the Lord Chancellor's proposal to eliminate legal aid for personal injury matters … As a … practitioner with a client base comprising many personal injury clients I am writing to express my concern at the government's proposals… I have dealt with numerous clients over the years who, but for the provision of legal aid, would not have been able to have taken their claim forward. The vast majority of my personal injury clients have been successful in their cases, approximately 90 per cent., and the cost to the state at the end of the day in those successful cases was nil.
I believe that legal aid provides a public service for personal injury victims at a remarkably low cost. I believe it is a good use of public money and is good value for money. Further, it plays an important part in holding wrongdoers liable in damages and as a consequence
․this important point was not really touched upon even in the extensive debates in another place․
improves health and safety generally both in industry and elsewhere.
I would like to stress that I am not writing because I am concerned that the removal of legal aid will have any effect on my practice.
Carole Green can be acquitted of any argument in her own interest, because
less than 50 per cent. of [her] clients on all matters have been legally aidable in the past and I do not expect that level of private work to alter. I write solely because I am concerned that if legal aid for personal injury matters is removed many victims will have suffered an injustice in respect of which they will not be able to gain compensation.
I sincerely hope you will be able to take my views into account in the forthcoming debate.
I am delighted to have been able to put those views before the House
I should declare an interest, not present but past, as a member of the Bar who practised for seven years from chambers in the midlands, and worked on many personal injury cases. Also, although this may be more relevant to my later remarks, I should mention that I am a former chairman of the corporate Bar—the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry, which represents barristers employed by companies—whose views I support.
I shall now draw attention to what was said in another place not by Conservative peers but by peers on the Government side. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) has already mentioned the concerns expressed by Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws. Throughout my career as a barrister, Helena Kennedy QC, as she then was, was regarded as a pre-eminent radical barrister. Indeed, she was regarded almost as a talisman by many Labour Members, and was quoted extensively and widely supported. Yet her criticisms of the Bill—especially, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, of the proposals for a public defender system—are savage.
Baroness Kennedy said:
I also have queries about some aspects of the block contracting system… How do you ensure that specialists who are suited to the case are brought in? Will the block contracting system relate only to run-of-the-mill cases? What happens with the unusual or specialist case? To what extent are we
she means her own side, the Government—
sacrificing choice to efficiency in terms of cost?
That last question is the most important. I intervened in the Minister's opening speech to ask whether the Bill was based on an attempt to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer money rather than, as is claimed, an attempt to increase access to justice. I asked the question because the Government are again pretending to do one thing while actually doing another.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough is right to say that the Bill is an example of the Government's Orwellian Newspeak; a word means what they, especially the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers in this place, want it to mean. The Bill is not about access to justice but about saving money for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Dismore: Should not the response to the criticism of block contracts be to consider the trade union legal schemes, which have operated a block contracting system for decades? Through that process, they have achieved cost-effective and high-quality legal services, which are provided by specialist practitioners. I see no reason why the new scheme should not operate in a similar way.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has extensive experience of working in that area, but I think that he would recognise that Baroness Kennedy suggested in the debate on the Bill in another place that the safeguards to ensure that the right things happen were not built in. The hon. Gentleman takes his own Government on trust, but the House has a duty to scrutinise what the Government propose. I say that there are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure that what the hon. Gentleman wants will happen.
I have no doubt that the trade union schemes have detailed rules and safeguards, but there are none on the face of the Bill. There should be. That is why Baroness Kennedy and I are concerned. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman, and Ministers, of some of the other things that Baroness Kennedy said. I agree with her criticisms. She says that she learned in her early days at the Bar—as I, like all other young barristers, did—that clerks in chambers had a clear idea of the importance of finding the right barrister for a particular case.
Baroness Kennedy rightly asked:
Will there be space in the block contracting system for the securing of the right barrister for a particular case? Will it be possible for any solicitor up and down the country to pursue the well known advocate who is a leader in the field of prisoner rights if he is not on the solicitor's normal block contract list of counsel? If the solicitor has a case involving mental health"—
I dealt with many mental health cases in my practice at the Bar—
will he be able to secure the specialist advocate who deals with mental health cases and has taken many of them to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords?
Will the solicitor be able to secure the counsel who have been at the heart of so many of the miscarriage of justice trials? Will the solicitor be able to seek out banisters who have specialist knowledge and understanding of, for example. domestic violence?
That is again a field in which I conducted many cases. Those are important points, and I am no more reassured than she was by the Bill.
Baroness Kennedy's savage criticism of the criminal public defender system should cause Labour Members great concern. She said:
I know that our Lord Chancellor is committed to human rights… But might he also be creating another legacy— introduction of a system which can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1157–58.
It is of concern that the Lord Chancellor has argued in respect of the Bill the exact opposite of what he argued in opposition. His response when he was taxed with what he had said in 1989 in the Lords debate was interesting. It struck me as a paradigm of the reason why he is regarded by many, even on his own side politically, as arrogant and dismissive of challenges from whatever political direction. He said:
I am minded to invoke what I believe a Victorian judge said when taxed with a previous decision he had made from which he had intellectually parted company in his own mind when sitting in an appellate court. He said something along the lines, "That is how it appeared to me then, but it is not how it appears to me now". If great judges can get away with that, mere Lord Chancellors can as well."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 617.]
We are not taken in by his false modesty. It is yet another example of Newspeak.
The powers that the Bill introduces for the Lord Chancellor were rightly criticised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. They also received detailed scrutiny in the other place. The General Council of the Bar, on whose inner cabinet, the general management committee, I had the honour to serve from 1992 and 1995, points out that a report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation sharply criticised the wide-ranging powers that the Bill would hand to the Lord Chancellor, who would be unchecked by parliamentary scrutiny. That took up much time in another place and no doubt will here,


perhaps in Committee. Although I do not expect to serve on the Committee because of other commitments, it is important on Second Reading to consider carefully whether the Lord Chancellor, who has often been compared to Cardinal Wolsey, in this Bill combines his usual Wolseyish attitude with that of Wolsey's boss through the so-called Henry VIII clauses that give him such untrammelled powers.
The Bar Council adds that the powers in the Bill as it stood when originally introduced included the constitutionally unprecedented power for the Lord Chancellor unilaterally to change the rules of independent legal professions. As noted earlier, that power was repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought by the pre-democracy apartheid Governments in South Africa. The Lord Chancellor has since undertaken to limit such interventions to rules that he considers unduly restrict rights of audience and to litigate. The Bar Council would like the powers to be subject to approval by a majority of the senior judges. That is an important constitutional safeguard in terms of the doctrine of the separation of powers.
The Law Society has no doubt sent its helpful briefing notes to all hon. Members. It is concerned about the Bill's equal opportunities implications. It would be helpful if the Government, on more mature consideration, were prepared to allow legal aid to continue for personal injury cases involving the elderly, those who suffer from mental incapacity or illness, and, most importantly, children. I sincerely urge the Government to consider those special needs.
I am concerned by the danger that the Government's introduction of the block contract system will make it much more difficult for people in rural areas to obtain a proper range of independent legal advice. Legal fees insurance, whose use the Government are keen to expand, will be expensive for all but the clearest cases. The uplift on no win, no fee will increase costs. While I support people taking out legal expenses insurance, it is wrong to make the entire system dependent on its existence, as the Government seek in these proposals. Those are serious concerns which have been commented on at length in another place and by many independent commentators.
Conservative peers have rightly described the Government's proposals as nationalising the criminal justice system. In criminal cases, it is important to maintain the suspect's or the criminal defendant's confidence in the system and ensure his or her effective participation in the process. That is what the Government said that they wanted in the White Paper "Modernising Justice". I am not sure that they have achieved that.
My constitutional concerns are among the most serious matters that the House must consider. I hope that the Government, if not today, then in Committee, will consider further questions, particularly in relation to ethnic minorities and cultural differences. How will the Bill and the Government's reformed legal system ensure that those issues are properly addressed? How will the duty of advocates to a court, particularly under a public defender system, to act in the interests of justice be measured and monitored in relation to clause 36? How will the impartiality of the public defender system be maintained? How will lawyers' independence be measured? What monitoring procedures will be put in place? What motivation will there be for lawyers to

achieve the most appropriate results for their clients? What steps will be taken to preserve public confidence in what is effectively a nationalised system?
On the budgetary implications, have the transitional and start-up costs been evaluated? I fear that the new bureaucracy shows some of the signs of the problems that arose from the over-bureaucratic nature of the Child Support Agency. Labour Members would be worried if they thought that they were creating a new Child Support Agency through a nationalised legal service. Have the costs of accommodation for the criminal defence service, presently carried out by private firms of solicitors, been evaluated? Have the administrative running costs, such as offices, salaries and pensions, been estimated? Have the training costs of the staff to run the new agencies been considered? Where is the pool of appropriately qualified people to staff the new agencies? Have the administrative costs of graduated fee schemes been compared with those of the proposals? I hope that the Government will answer all those serious questions. I am not convinced that the Government have got the proposals right.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I begin by declaring an interest as a practising member of the Bar. I declare another interest, which is that 25 years ago I was one of the team working in the Islington legal advice centre, which was one of the first to be set up. That part of London was at the time a deprived and destitute area and nothing like the new Labour paradise that it has since become. We set up the centre in a church hall. We had our 25th anniversary last year and it was attended by many elderly people, some of whom were unrecognisable from 25 years before. We were all proud to have been part of that centre, and the opening remarks by my hon. Friend the Minister could not have been more welcome in those circumstances. I congratulate him, the Lord Chancellor and the Government on setting up the community legal service to give some coherence and direction to the patchwork of provision, especially in welfare and housing law. I agree that it is high time that a larger proportion of our legal aid budget was spent on those worthy aims.
I also congratulate the Government on that part of the Bill that will extend on a statutory basis the right of audience of solicitors to the higher courts. Many members of my profession will not thank me for saying that, but I believe in the virtues of a split profession and they are not assisted by restrictive practices. The provision will not make that much difference. Solicitors are welcome to taste the delights of myopic, querulous and bad-tempered judges if they wish to do so, and I am confident that few of them will. I have never perceived any reason for such a restrictive practice and I welcome the change.
I further congratulate the Government on the provisions in the Bill that will ensure that those who apply for silk and are unsuccessful will bear the costs of that unsuccessful application. I give that my full-blooded and wholehearted support, realising as I do that it has no retrospective effect. That brings me to the end of that embarrassing eulogy on the Bill, because it also contains two aspects that are dangerous. One of them is profoundly dangerous for civil liberties, for all the reasons so eloquently articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in his long and valid analysis of the setting up of the criminal defence service.
I take the point that the Bill includes a provision to ensure the ability of those charged with criminal offences to choose their advocate from the criminal defence service or from the independent part of the legal profession, but the Bill does not set out in stone or in any other way the relative quantum that is to be allocated between the independent profession and the criminal defence service, which will be entirely in the employ of the state. Of course, it is the avowed intention of this Government that the criminal defence service employed by Government will take a small part of the quantum of funds that are available and thus genuine choice will remain. I accept the Lord Chancellor's assurance on that point, but we cannot question him about it in this Chamber. That is a pity and an anachronism, but I accept my hon. Friend the Minister's assertions on the point.
The present Lord Chancellor is, of course, a luminous lawyer and a beautiful human being. He is, no doubt, untouched by the trappings or temptations of power. However, his predecessors in the past 1,200 years have not all been so luminous and there is no guarantee that his successors in the coming millennia will be any better or worse. In those circumstances, handing to an unelected Government appointee the power to control those who defend against the state is dangerous and unwelcome. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister takes that point seriously and I hope that he will consider it further in Committee. That provision concerns me, but in itself would not cause me to take the grave and serious step of not supporting the Government over the Bill.
However, the main issue in the Bill is of such gravity and seriousness that I say, with a heavy heart, that I will be unable to support the Government on Second Reading. When the Bill returns to this House after its Committee stage, it may be in a different form and worthy of support, but at the moment there is a profound lacuna and danger central to the Bill and it must be addressed. It is the removal of legal aid from those who wish to bring meritorious claims for personal injury.
Contrary to the imputations that my hon. Friend the Minister may have made in his remarks, my reservations are not those of a reactionary lawyer. As has been pointed out already, those reservations are shared by the Consumers Association, the Law Centres Federation, the Advice Services Alliance, the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Consumer Council, Liberty, Justice, Shelter and the Legal Action Group. To that list it is now possible to add the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, a robust body which was the strong proponent of conditional fee agreements. It has recently stated that the provisions in the Bill are a mean trick, because it was never intended that conditional fee agreements should replace legal aid.
I was astonished that the provision was included in the Bill. I perceive no logical, legal, constitutional or social reason why it should be there. The first question is what is wrong with the present system, which provides legal aid for the poor, the disabled and children who require it to pursue damages for personal injury. The answer is dissyllabic: nothing. The system is, by a street, the most efficient part of our welfare and social service provision. Some 75,000 cases per annum are granted legal aid for the pursuance of personal injury cases at a gross cost to the fund of —226 million. Of that, 84 per cent. is clawed

back because of the success rate of litigants. Some 91 per cent. of cases are successful. Any imputation against legal aid lawyers, who take those cases at an average net cost of £559, that they are overcharging—or not carrying out their public duties to the standard that we are entitled to expect£simply does not pass muster. I have practised a little more than my hon. Friend the Minister and I know that if I had anywhere near a 91 per cent. success rate, I would consider myself to be infinitely more successful than I am or have ever been.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Such a high success rate implies that legal aid sponsors well-founded, reasonable cases. Can my hon. and learned Friend give a single example of anyone who has been ineligible for legal aid and has failed to arrange a conditional fee agreement? I know of no such person.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The question is well put. Since the 1995 provisions, which enabled conditional fee agreements to be entered into in such instances, cases that were funded by legal aid have been specifically excluded. As yet, there has been no research to determine what the effect will be when 75,000 cases come on to the market. None of my constituents have been affected, but my clients and those of my chambers who were just above the legal aid limit have been ineligible for legal aid. They were not able to fund their cases largely because of the disabilities that they sustained as a result of the accident or misadventure for which they sought to sue.
Like most lawyers, I do not necessarily like contingency or conditional fees. However, I have always believed that it was absurd to prevent my colleagues and me from saying, "I will take your case for nothing or for much less than I would normally charge in the knowledge that, if we are successful, I will get my normal fee. If we are unsuccessful, I will take less." I do not believe there is anything inherently wrong with that system—although I do not like it.

Dr. Lynda Clark: It is important to recognise that speculative actions have always been possible in Scotland. Advocates in Scotland have always been able to do what my hon. and learned Friend describes. The Scottish Bar has assisted people by taking cases for nothing and, if they are successful, the fees are recovered from the other side. However, it is important to recognise that there is no uplift on the basis of success—which is another issue altogether.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is an example of the great wisdom of the Scottish legal system. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for pointing out an essential failing in the Bill: the uplift concept. She has taken the words out of my mouth. In the circumstances about which I was postulating, I would not have contemplated saying that I would charge an extra fee. I would have simply said, "I will share your risk on the basis of what I would normally, honourably and properly charge."

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I defer to and respect his knowledge about such matters. When he has taken conditional fee cases, has he had any difficulty defining a win or, to use his words, a success? Does he agree that


an independent third-party lawyer should sometimes give secondary advice to the client in achieving a definition of a win?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I do not wish to get involved in the minutiae of these matters, but I accept that that is an immediate problem. It is difficult to determine what is a success and the point at which one should demand a success fee. I have never taken a case on the basis of a success fee. Before 1995, we were not allowed to make conditional fee agreements. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers is just one reason why I would never take a success fee case.

Mr. Dismore: To answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), the definition of a success is always incorporated in the terms of the agreement, so that is not a problem. I have often felt embarrassed when clients who are funded by legal aid have had to pay, month after month, substantial contributions towards the legal aid agreement. The beauty of conditional fees is that they do not cost the client a penny—and the Bill will improve the situation further. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that such clients are better off under conditional fee agreements than under legal aid? Bearing in mind the substantial success rate of cases funded by legal aid, most people would qualify for conditional fees. I have often advised clients not to opt for legal aid for that reason.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I shall deal with that interesting and lengthy intervention as follows. My hon. Friend will know that more than 80 per cent. of legal aid cases are accepted on a non-contributory basis, so no contribution is paid in more than 80 per cent. of cases. The recipients of legal aid are employed in only 30 per cent. of those cases: the vast majority of recipients are pensioners who are reliant on benefit or children. That answers my hon. Friend's first point, which is not a bad one. I accept that conditional fee agreements have advantages at the margins.
However, my hon. Friend's argument does not pertain to the majority of cases—the 50,000 or 60,000 cases a year as opposed to the 20,000 cases that are funded under conditional fee agreements. My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention, but it does not deal with the main thrust of my argument. As I understand it, he does not advocate the ending of legal aid—although he is an active proponent of conditional fee agreements. I respect him for that and I am not antagonistic towards him. In order to ascertain who supports this noble system, it is necessary to refer to a much quoted passage from 1996, which states:
Supporters of legal aid must never cease to emphasise that it is a highly successful public social service. In civil cases which reached judgements in 1995/96, there were judgements in favour of the assisted person in 81 per cent. of cases. The proportion of cases where there was either a settlement or judgement in favour was 91 per cent. PI litigation is a category conspicuously successful. Obviously the greater the success rate the closer the legal aid system can approach self-funding. These success figures tell against any argument that legal aid is generally granted too readily, but it must be remembered that there are a small number of very high cost cases which account for a large proportion of expenditure.

That ringing endorsement of this noble system was delivered by the Lord Chancellor in 1996 before he achieved his high office.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for endorsing my earlier point about the Lord Chancellor's rather sudden change of view upon his appointment. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman go further—I am delighted to have received so much support for my arguments—and agree that it is important to have available in the Library the latest figures for the expenditure of legal aid? The Minister responded to my earlier intervention by saying that the figures that I had cited—the most recent figures available publicly—were not up to date. He said that the Government had more up-to-date figures. In addition to our agreeing about the extension of rights of audience and concerns about personal injury, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the Government have a duty to share up-to-date legal aid figures with the rest of us? Such information should not be retained to inform just the Minister's responses.

Mr. Hoon: I just shared it.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). However, it is not just a question of sharing the figures. Simply saying that the Government believe the figure is 7 per cent., does not amount to revealing the source of their figures. The hon. Gentleman and I have cited figures from the Legal Aid Board. Our figures are nearly identical—I am not sure who is correct—and they point to a 1.5 per cent. increase in legal aid expenditure compared with a 3.3 per cent. inflation rate. They reveal a significant increase in the assistance provided under legal aid in the past two years. Any suggestion that the legal aid fund is not under control is not borne out by Legal Aid Board figures. If there are other figures or other research, I would like to see them.
The Minister nods, but he will not like my next point. He cited figures that showed a vast increase in legal aid expenditure between 1991 and 1996, when it was brought under control. That increase was due largely to the recession into which we were plunged by the Conservative Government as people who were affected by that recession made demands on the legal aid fund. There were several other factors, such as the setting up of the Serious Fraud Office, which vastly increased costs in criminal legal aid. The statistics do not provide any succinct or reasonable basis for removing legal aid from the highly meritorious cases to which I have referred.

Mr. Linton: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain why, if legal aid cases have a 91 per cent. success rate, it would be an imposition to expect a case to have a 75 per cent. success rate before it was given a conditional fee agreement?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: A 75 per cent. success rate does not apply to a conditional fee agreement, which can be taken out in respect of any case by any lawyer who is prepared to do so on the basis of an uplift. One of the problems is that the client has to rely entirely on the lawyer to tell him what kind of case he has. The lawyer may say that he wants a 100 per cent. uplift. There are well-known anecdotal cases of lawyers operating on a


blanket 70 per cent. uplift on the basis that every case is a bit dodgy so one may as well immediately equalise the risk.
In response to my hon. Friend's question, one may ask the rhetorical question: why, if legal aid cases enjoy such a high success rate, shoud they not be effectively privatised? That is what the measure would do, by pushing the burden of the welfare state on to solicitors and insurance companies. The answer is simple. First, as I have just said, we would be reliant on an imperfect system—the advice that is given within a contingency fee system.
The second point—this is the answer to the question about reverse selection asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—relates to the funding of disbursements. When people with no money ask a solicitor to take a case, it is taken on a no win, no fee basis, and the disbursements for employing experts and counsel, if that is necessary, have to be borne by the solicitor. People who are injured or disabled will, without a shadow of a doubt, have to trail the coat of their respective damages from solicitor to solicitor until they find one with the right portfolio of risk. If they are lucky enough to find one, they must hope that he is a good one.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that if one took that service and superimposed it on the national health service, with the concept that those who are injured and disabled and require the services of the state have to go from doctor to doctor until they find someone who is commercially able to take their case, there would rightly be outrage. The circumstances that I have described are in no way different.

Mr. Mullin: Returning to uplift, my hon. and learned Friend said that there are lawyers taking a 100 per cent. uplift. No doubt there are such lawyers, but he has read—indeed, he drew it to my attention—the Policy Studies Institute document, "The Price of Success", which has analysed conditional fee cases. The document says:
The average uplift is 43 per cent. The Law Society's voluntary cap which prevents more than 25 per cent. of damages being eaten up by fees has become virtually standard.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My hon. Friend is right—a 25 per cent. voluntary cap on fees is imposed by the Law Society and that has undoubtedly been working. At the time of the PSI report, the 43 per cent. uplift was also working. If my hon. Friend reads on, he will see that report clearly says that, because of the extremely limited number of cases that the PSI was able to consider, it is far too early to draw any conclusions about the validity of conditional fee agreements. I have repeatedly drawn to the attention of my hon. Friends the fact that there is no research. The emphatic conclusion of the PSI report, which 1 drew to my hon. Friend's attention, was that no policy could be based on its findings.
The Government do not have the necessary research on how the 20,000 cases based on conditional fee agreements have operated. Nor do they have any significant research on whether the insurance industry will flood in to pick up cases that were part of the welfare state, as the Government hope that insurers, as well as solicitors, will

do. All the evidence, including that from insurers themselves, suggests that they will not flood in to take on those cases.
An article in The Lawyer of 1 February was headlined, "Insurers to cherry-pick low risk legal aid cases", and said that
legal insurers predict a slimming down of the number of cases receiving funding, rather than greater access to justice.
'There's no question about it. The insurers will be more selective' says Christine Malkin, director of Amicus Legal.
Anthony Mowatt of Keystone Legal Benefits, meanwhile, likens potential cases to a big pie, part of which insurers will find unappetising. 'One clump will be chucked in the bin and we will all be fighting over what's left," he says.
As if that was not ringing enough, the article continues:
Derri-Ann Clark of Saturn Professional Risks is more concise: 'It's got to cut down access to justice for a number of people. There are occasions when you'd like to help someone but you can't take the risk.'
That is the message which is coming loud and clear from the insurance industry. If the Bill is passed, each year we shall subject 75,000 cases of the poorest and most disabled people to the circumstances that have been projected.
All I ask of the Government is that they accept an extremely limited amendment to the Bill to retain legal aid for personal injuries cases involving children, people who are reliant on benefits or pensions and those who are disabled within the definition of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That is not a great deal to ask. It would safeguard the poorest in society. If, in five years, it appeared that the system of conditional fees was otherwise working like a dream, the Government could return to Parliament and say that they were justified in taking that risk to give the poorest in society a break. At the moment, however, I have to say that many hon. Members did not come to the House to remove that protection of the welfare state from the poorest people in it.
There will be beneficiaries of the Bill. I repeat that I hold no brief for lawyers and I do not make my remarks on the basis that the measure will impoverish lawyers—quite the reverse. The Government's proposals will enrich many lawyers who are awaiting conditional fee agreements. There will be two types: one will be absolutely admirable and the other will be absolutely not admirable. The first type includes large firms, which are represented in the House. They will, of course, take on clients because they have an enormous portfolio of cases and have the ability to churn out cases and take on the portfolio of risk. They will accept a limited number of cases from the myriad legal aid solicitors who are at present responsible for operating, on the level of the high street, what I hope I have demonstrated is an excellent system.
The other lawyers who will, unhappily, benefit from the Bill are the charlatans. They will be prepared to accept, on conditional fee agreements, the cases of people who would otherwise have got legal aid. They will churn out those cases, settle them or push them when they should not be pushed, depending on how much it suits their commercial need. I do not know a single concerned lawyer in personal injury litigation, working for a large firm, who does not perceive those risks to be real and completely unacceptable.
My hon. Friend the Minister has repeatedly said that he receives letters. I have received many letters from some of the best and most radical firms of solicitors who deal with those cases, as well as those that involve a high degree of public service, and they are unanimous that the Government's proposals should be rejected.
I shall end on an entirely parochial note. The Chatham dockyard is in my constituency. It is well known that, year after year, many cases of industrial disease, including leukaemia and cancers, are emerging. It is almost certain that those cases result from nuclear exposure at the dockyard during the 1980s. I simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister, will those cases be covered by any exception in the Bill? At the moment, they are not. At the moment, those people would have a right—

Mr. Dismore: Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union.

Mr. Marshall£: ;ws: No, they do not have trade union backing, and my hon. Friend knows perfectly well why—hey were working in a dockyard.
If such cases do not have trade union backing, will they be able to obtain legal aid? I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give me that answer.

6 pm

Mr. John Burnett: The reaction of many people who are attending today's debate is that it could be just another occasion when lawyers seek to defend their vested interests and restrictive practices. Many Members who are not lawyers will come to this place with, at the back of their mind, the thought, "Och, it is time to zip up your pockets, because the lawyers want to retain the status quo, which suits them well." I hope that, in my speech, I shall disabuse the House of those ideas, explain why I think that much of the Bill is misguided, and suggest constructively what can be doneto change the Bill and genuinely to improve access to justice without compromising the integrity of our legal system.
I must declare an interest. I am still a partner in a firm of solicitors, but I can tell the House that I shall be leaving my firm in the near future.
On 28 July 1998, hon. Members debated in Committee the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1998. The Government are intent on solving what they perceive to be the budgetary problem of legal aid by greatly extending conditional fee agreements and making other changes. However, before I discuss conditional fee agreements—no fee—like to be the first to agree with the Government that changes need to be made to legal aid, and that a preferable system should be introduced to open up justice to middle-income Britain.
Regarding legal aid, there are areas where change should and must be made, dealing first with the merits test. It is beyond me how the merits of a case are gauged, and I can illustrate that by taking the example of two cases.
In one case, a constituent, the defendant, sold a business many years ago. The plaintiff claimed that he had not got what he paid for. Not only did the plaintiff get legal aid in respect of the first case before a judge, which he lost, and for the second case before another judge, on the same

facts for the same claim, which he also lost, but he has now been given legal aid again, for an appeal. It is beyond me how that individual was granted legal aid for the third time, let alone the second. The state is effectively funding this case for the third time, while the defendant, who does not qualify for legal aid, has run out of money to hire a lawyer to defend him and must now do it himself.
The scandal is that that defendant has no hope of recovering the costs that he incurred earlier, despite the fact that he has won twice. That is an unfair element of the existing legal aid system. Time and again, the non legally aided party settles what are sometimes the most unmeritorious cases, simply because he is on a hiding to nothing. If he wins, he still loses his own costs and he may as well buy off the other party in respect of that sum in any event, right at the start.
Another case, from the opposite end of the spectrum, concerns a young girl with devoted and caring parents, who has suffered, and still suffers, from an illness that renders her weak and emaciated. She had treatment and was abused by a person who was supposed to be treating her. Omitting for a moment the criminal aspects of the matter, it is proving very difficult indeed to get legal aid for that person, whose condition has been severely exacerbated by the professional who was there to look after her. That is despite the fact that there is evidence in writing from two other professional people to the effect that they saw the young girl being subjected to inappropriate treatment, and the fact that the individual concerned was suspended some time ago in an internal inquiry that has been completed not in respect of the case of this particular girl but in respect of the case of two other girls subjected to similar treatment.
There is every good reason to look into how the Legal Aid Board measures the merits of the case, and I am glad to note that the Bill starts to address that problem. I believe that significant savings could be made if the right experts were available to measure merits on the basis that I have just outlined, and if the people with the right expertise were available to look into the means of applicants for legal aid. Subject to safeguards, 1 welcome the fact that the Bill contains provisions that will assist in more accurately measuring the applicants' means. I am convinced that there are savings to be made there, too.
The Government are providing that civil legal aid is to be administered through the community legal service. That will involve contracting and franchising. It will draw in citizens advice bureaux, independent advice centres and law centres—alled not-for-profit sector. I am delighted that the not-for-profit sector is now to be recognised, and I hope that it gets the funding that it deserves. Many of us are worried about how the system of contracting will operate, especially in rural and remote areas.
I believe that the idea behind franchising and contracting is sound. On 27 January 1999, we debated in Committee the draft Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulations 1998. I said then that specialisation should be encouraged, and I believe that it should be encouraged for those who seek to obtain contracts. Contracting will assist in monitoring standards and in fighting fraud— regrettably, there is fraud among a few solicitors. It should ensure that better value for money is obtained for the public purse.
What horrifies me is that the Government envisage only about 3,000 of what they inelegantly describe as outlets. There are now approximately 10,600 outlets for legal aid. I remind the House that it takes two to litigate, and that each party must be separately represented. There should be an element of choice. Three thousand outlets is simply inadequate, especially taking into account the needs of rural areas and rural towns. There will be large areas with no access and, effectively, no choice.
I should like to draw the House's attention to the matter of open-ended costs—another aspect where I believe that there is potential for containment of legal aid expenditure. Considerable work has been done by the Bar, the solicitors' profession and certain experts on a system of graduated and integrated fees.
In the past, some senior QCs have been paid inordinately large sums for certain well-publicised legal aid cases. It is not just the Bill that has precipitated a rethink of fees, especially legal fees; that has been going on for some time. The Lord Chancellor's Department now has full details of what is proposed by the Bar, the solicitors' profession and certain experts for a system of fixed, graduated fees, which are integrated. That means that clients, and the Legal Aid Board when granting a certificate, will not be signing a blank cheque. They will know what they are in for financially, except in the most unusual cases. That is an another area where money could and should be saved.
I have described some of the ways in which the existing legal aid system may be altered for the better—ways in which money can be saved and better targeted. Conditional fee agreements are the Government's proposed means for widening access to justice to middle-income Britain, but, as I have said in previous debates, they are deeply flawed in so far as they pitch the interests of the client against those of the lawyer. The temptation for the lawyer will always be to settle and get his money and his uplift instead of maximising his client's claim.
In any event, conditional fees cannot be made to work without after-the-event insurance covering defence costs, and there is no real sign yet that the insurance cover is available, and at what cost and on what terms. It is simply no good for the Minister to say that it is up to the market to come up with appropriate policies.
Before conditional fees are extended, the least that the Government can do is satisfy the House that insurance cover is available at a reasonable charge, and not with unduly restrictive terms and conditions. I warn the Government that premiums in relation to personal injury cases in which the prospect of success is over 90 per cent. have doubled in the past year. We can also be certain that that form of insurance will involve a significant cost, and that conflicts of interest between clients and lawyers will be as nothing when insurance companies come into the proceedings. They will dictate the terms; they will dictate the conditions; and they will dictate the settlement.
I also believe that only the very best cases will be taken on the basis of conditional fee agreements. Anyone with any knowledge or experience of litigation will know that only when proceedings progress is it possible to gauge the merits of a case. In many meritorious cases, justice will

be denied and individuals will be denied justice. The opportunities and temptations for lawyers to cut corners and not make proper disclosure will be abundant.
I am particularly disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to do far more work on the contingency legal aid fund. I believe that, under that system, access to justice will be truly opened to middle-income Britons and others. The integrity of the law can be retained if a lawyer has at heart not his own interests, but those of justice and his client. The Bill contains a tepid reference to that form of funding, which might be taken up in the near future. That, as I say, is disappointing.
The Bill contains serious flaws. Time and again, despite concessions made on clause 4 in the other place, it arrogates to the Lord Chancellor, effectively, powers to dominate and run the legal professions. Under the present arrangements, the Lord Chancellor must carry others with him. For example, in respect of the rights to conduct litigation, he must carry with him four designated judges: the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. The Bill, however, requires him merely to consult and then decide.
Time and again, the Bill allows the Lord Chancellor to override his consultees and, effectively, make decisions himself. The Lord Chancellor straddles all three pillars of our constitution: the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. His office is a contradiction of the doctrine of separation of powers. Once the Bill has been passed, there will be nothing to inhibit or check the Lord Chancellor in his complete dominance of the professions, the conduct of litigation and the funding and control of the legal services commission. I hope that Labour Members will give careful consideration to that aspect in particular before voting on the merits of the Bill. It constitutes a major erosion of the independence of the legal professions, and the Minister with absolute control will be in the other place.
During the last Session of Parliament, an early-day motion signed by more than 100 Members of Parliament called for an independent Department of Justice, with the responsible Secretary of State accountable to the House of Commons. It is a shame that the Government have not seen fit to curb the powers of the Lord Chancellor, and to make the office more accountable. Instead, the Lord Chancellor is to have even greater power.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Surely an affirmative resolution of Parliament, not just a decision by the Lord Chancellor, will ensure that certain other resolutions are passed.

Mr. Burnett: Regrettably, the Lord Chancellor's powers under the Bill are not all so circumscribed. My point is that there should be a Minister who is accountable to this House of Commons, rather than an unelected individual in the other House.

Mr. Garnier: The point raised so eloquently by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was also raised in the other place. It was dealt with effectively by peers representing the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition, and by Cross Benchers, who pointed out to the Government—if the Government had not already realised—that the affirmative resolution procedure is


never overturned by the House of Lords and, given this lot's majority of 179, will not even be considered sensibly in the Commons, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. The comfort that the hon. Gentleman takes from the affirmative resolution procedure is not justified in the current circumstances.

Mr. Burnett: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is germane to virtually every piece of legislation that is dealt with on the Floor of the House. The Government have an overwhelming majority, which is regrettable—but I hope that, having considered some of the matters in the Bill and some of the issues that I have raised, Labour Members will think again before traipsing into the Lobby tonight.
Another serious flaw in the Bill is the introduction of what could be described as a state defender system. The state should not be both prosecutor and defender. Of course it is for the state to be the prosecutor, but it should not be the defender as well. To any impartial observer, that conflict of interest is stark and obvious. A defendant accused of a crime has the vast power of the state ranged against him. He is alone, and seeks impartial and independent counsel, advice and protection. Defendants will want to turn to a lawyer who is wholly independent of the vast apparatus of the state that is being mobilised against them.
In another place, a purposes clause was inserted into the Bill, which the Lord Chancellor has derided as a gimmick. The clause may not have been perfectly drafted, and there is scope for amendments to it; but what is wrong with a clause that enshrines the Government's stated aims and objectives? The Government agree that there should be access to legal services, that such access should not be impaired by disability or other inaccessibility and that high-quality legal services should be available to the legally aided litigant, rather than being the preserve of the wealthy. Those are the aims that the Government say they espouse; what objection can they possibly have to the enshrining of their aims in a purposes clause?
On the matter of accessibility and disability, I consider it particularly mean and niggardly of the Government to abolish all legal aid for personal injury claims. I believe that they are considering retaining legal aid for disabled and vulnerable groups. I wait to hear from the Minister the Government's exact proposals in respect of legal aid relating to personal injury, and what guarantees they propose for disabled people, minors and other vulnerable groups.
I referred earlier to the huge extension of the Lord Chancellor's powers. Nowhere is that clearer than in the area of finance. Effectively, civil legal aid is now to be such sum as the Lord Chancellor deems fit, and for such cases as the Lord Chancellor deems appropriate after the provision of funding for the criminal defence service. It is possible that the funding for the criminal defence service will completely squeeze out the funding for the community legal service. That is very unsatisfactory: it could mean that many hundreds of thousands of our countrymen, if not more, will be without any remedy for wrongdoing. Their whole lives could be jeopardised by the decision. I ask the Minister to reconsider the funding proposals, and to ensure that there is not only proper and adequate funding for advice and representation for defence in criminal proceedings, but an adequate and separate fund for civil matters.
Finally, let me mention one or two surprising omissions from the Bill. I believe I heard the Lord Chancellor say on the "Today" programme on Saturday 20 March that the Government were considering the establishment of a judicial appointments commission. Why is that not in the Bill? I have raised the matter in the House in the past, and have received stonewalling replies. We want a more open and transparent system, not just for the appointment of judges but for other senior legal appointments. With the incorporation of the European convention on human rights and the vast growth in administrative law and judicial review, judges will more and more frequently make decisions that can be described as political. The background, affiliations and views of judges should be in the public domain. I do not believe that judges have anything to fear from that.
One of the inequities of the present legal aid system is that successful non legally aided parties can virtually never recover their costs. As I said earlier, that puts such parties in an appalling position. Time and again, legally aided litigants with frivolous claims are bought off. Surely the time has come to put parties on the same footing as to costs, whether or not they are legally aided.
Parts V and VI relate to magistrates courts. If there is one aspect of legal affairs that infuriates hon. Members, it is the arbitrary and peremptory closure of magistrates courts in their constituencies. Hon. Members are right: justice should be done and be seen to be done locally. We shall therefore table an amendment in Committee calling for a presumption to that effect and enabling a local authority affected by the closure of a magistrates court—that means not just the paying authority, which already has this right, but another affected local authority—to appeal any proposal for closure of a magistrates court.
Finally, the Bill is unlikely to stir great controversy throughout the country. It is an easy Bill for the Government to railroad through two years before a general election. Its consequences, like the measure to tax pension funds, will not be felt for some years. If the Bill is passed, there will be an erosion of standards in the legal profession as it embarks on what will become a US-style contingency fee operation. London, which has hitherto been the preferred place for litigation in international disputes, will cease to hold that pre-eminent position, and individuals will consult their lawyers knowing that the interests of the individual are pitched against those of their lawyers. I hope that the Government will reconsider the Bill. For the reasons that I have given, my hon. Friends and I will vote against it tonight.

Mr. Mark Todd: I hesitate to contribute to the debate. I am not a lawyer, although that might be seen as a qualification rather than a bar to my speaking. When I was younger, my mum and dad both wished me to be a lawyer, and I have often reflected that it might have earned me greater rewards than the choice that I made. There are plenty of advocates of the profession in the Chamber, who will be able to speak much more persuasively than I can on the aspects of the Bill that have already occupied considerable time.
There is much to commend in the Bill. The major elements are the establishment of a community legal service and the introduction into legal services of contractual relationships and quality assurances. I have


been exposed long enough—as an ordinary individual and as a Member of Parliament—to the mediocrity that one often finds in legal services to be convinced of the need for change and for a clearer relationship between the Government paying for a service and the quality that that service provides for the citizen. That, I am sure, is one of the goals of the Bill.
My one hesitation centres on whether the distribution of that service may be tackled in the same way as the distribution of magistrates courts. If it is, I will regret my support for that aspect of the Bill, as the Minister involved has already sanctioned the closure of a magistrates court in my constituency and judged that local justice will be served adequately despite that. Obviously, I would be concerned if he took the same view about the availability of quality legal advice in my area.
I welcome the news of the Government's amendments on the operation of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. That is a sensible step, which will have my full support, as will the greater choice of advocacy arrangements that should be available. I have heard the remarks about the closed shop of the legal profession. I would welcome the opening up of opportunities for others to take part in the advocacy process.
However, I remain hesitant about one aspect of the Bill—the availability of legal aid in cases of personal injury. I would not go as far as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) in my response. That may be partly through ignorance, but it is also partly in the hope that the Government may better explain what they are attempting to do, and may consider more deeply some of the alternative paths to achieve a goal which I largely share.
The proposals to extend conditional fee arrangements to cover most civil claims, including those for personal injury, are eminently reasonable. I have listened to the argument that the overwhelming majority of cases are won. In commercial terms, that suggests to me that the risks involved are eminently insurable. I see no reason why the bulk of cases dealing with personal injury could not be dealt with through insurance arrangements.
It has been argued that legal aid spending in this area is good value for money, because the net public cost is so tiny. On one calculation, the net public cost was £35 million in a year, which is a trivial amount in public spending terms. That calculation did not, I think, take full account of the benefit repayments that might have been achieved as well. Nevertheless, I recognise the desire to reduce the scope and focus of legal aid. That should deliver some administrative savings and simplicity in the way in which legal aid is offered, which may be a laudable goal.
I am doubtful whether all cases currently funded under legal aid can be covered in the way suggested in the Bill. I noted with care the Minister's reference to exceptions where a case of quality might not be properly dealt with through the insurance route, and to the steps that could be taken to deal with that. I shall return to the subject in due course.
I should first be interested to hear more about the research that has been done on the operation of conditional fee arrangements. That has already been raised in the debate, and the answers have been given

courteously but have added little to our knowledge of the subject. As far as I am aware, the research to date has been inconclusive and has indicated that there is a risk of gaps appearing in the service available. If there is further information, the Minister could add to our knowledge at the end of the debate.
Secondly, I should welcome some reassurance that successful cases that have been won with legal aid in the past would have been won under the system introduced under the Bill. I recognise the role of trade unions in this respect. My constituency contains many former mining employees who have gained from the cases relating to emphysema and white finger. In such cases, active trade unions have been able to support individuals and demonstrate the liability of the company for which those people worked.
However, that does not always apply in cases of industrial injury. I listened to the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway who has left his seat—or, rather, has moved from his seat to another location. He cautioned that that may not always be true, and I share his concern that cases of industrial injury should be pursued with vigour and with the hope of success under the provisions of the Bill. I would welcome reassurance of that.
Thirdly, I am worried that some cases with extremely high preliminary costs may not be satisfactorily covered. A constituent of mine who is a specialist in this area quotes an example of a constituent who was knocked down in a road accident by an uninsured driver and suffered catastrophic injuries. There were no witnesses. Assembling a viable case cost about £50,000 before it reached court and, eventually, satisfactory settlement.
That is a major cash-flow burden for a partnership. The Government need to explain how a partnership can meet the sudden arrival of such a burden. Many practices would not be able to absorb such a substantial bill and would have to turn the case away. Even if the case was of high quality, the costs of taking on expert and medical advice would be beyond the means of the practice and would be a bar on its taking on and supporting the case. The cost of the case that I have cited was probably not exceptional. There must be many others where another nought could be added to the figure. Such a sum would deter even the most substantial businesses. The likelihood of the case's having a long gestation and its taking some time to recover the money would also be a deterrent.
That could apply in cases requiring proof of industrial diseases. We have seen how long it took to reach a conclusion in cases involving emphysema and white finger. Those cases were covered by trade union involvement, but a normal solicitors practice may not be able to undertake such a burden. Discretion is available to the Lord Chancellor. I listened carefully to the words of my hon. Friend the Minister on that. I have some democratic concerns about that discretion being left solely to the Lord Chancellor. The coverage of that discretion and how it might be applied has also not been explained—at least not to me. I would welcome clarification on that. I might well be satisfied if it were clear that there was a way of catering for exceptions that dealt with my concerns.
An insurer has the power to insist on a particular lawyer being used in a case. There may be merit in advising a client to avoid a particular solicitor who does not have the


necessary expertise for a case, but I have some concerns that the bias of insurers may warp the marketplace between competent firms who are able to represent a case. People who are well able to support a client may be ruled out because they do not appear on an insurer's list of approved solicitors.
I hope that the Government will accept my constructive concerns about the Bill. I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, who may be able to explain the Government's intentions a little further and reassure me about them.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, particularly because the issue was in fundamental need of being addressed. I declare my interest as a practising member of the Bar. I am particularly involved in personal injury and criminal law relating mainly to health and safety. I have said for some time that difficult issues in relation to access to justice have to be faced, and that change and amelioration are required to provide an efficient service. The Government deserve to be commended for their willingness to tackle the issue. I profoundly believe that if it is tackled properly and if we nudge the system in the right direction, with radical changes if they are required, we can have an efficient system of access to justice for the next century, continuing a fine tradition that has stood this country in good stead internationally for a long time.
I ask the House's indulgence while I dwell for a moment on principles. There is a great tendency to criticise lawyers and I dare say that such criticism is often justified. We often hear criticism in the House of our system of justice. The system of justice in this country, as anywhere else, is fallible, because it is a human system. Perfection is not achievable; we can only try to do our best. However, when we try to change the system, we would do well to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I have heard a continuous stream of praise from foreign countries for the way in which our system of justice operates. I have particular knowledge of and close associations with one foreign country—a near neighbour of ours. A number of nuggets stand out in that praise. Our system of justice and those who administer it are seen to have high standards of conduct and probity. However—this is the matter that the Government are right to address—standards of efficiency are not necessarily so high. The independence of our system of justice is also central to the respect that it is accorded. The independence of the judiciary and the lack of compartmentalisation of those who serve in the justice system are a matter of wonder to many who come from abroad. It is a central feature of our criminal justice system that lawyers are interchangeable and we have steered well clear of a public prosecutor system for advocacy in courts and of public defendants. The House would do well to bear in mind the fact that that meets with considerable praise and is compared favourably with countries that have such systems.
When we address the need for change in our system of access to justice, I am concerned to preserve what is good, while enabling change to meet the undoubted financial constraints that are placed on the system. There has been exponential growth in the funding of legal services,

particularly legal aid, over the past 25 years. It is a point of some pride that most of that growth has occurred under a Conservative Government. The figure rose from less than £100 million in 1979 to £1,000 million 11 years later. That hardly reflects a lack of concern from that Government about the principles of justice.
At the opening of Maidstone Crown court by Her Majesty the Queen, the point was made that the dispensation of justice is the original social service provided by the state. It is the basic contract by which people subordinate themselves to the state, in return for being provided with protection. It is, therefore, of particular importance that people should not be excluded from the system. One hundred years ago, a High Court judge said that justice was open to all, like the Ritz hotel. He was making the perfectly proper point that justice was for those who could afford it. We have come a long way in the past century, but I am troubled that some of the measures in the Bill would result in our turning our backs on the basic principle of access to justice for all.
I do not want to repeat the speeches that have already been made, but I should like to refer to some of the key issues in the Bill. The first, spoken about so eloquently by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and others, is legal aid, the introduction of conditional fee agreements, their substitution for legal aid and the removal of legal aid from those who were previously entitled to enjoy it. From my experience as a practitioner, I know of the number of people who have fallen outside the legal aid net and therefore have found litigation beyond their means, but trying to solve that problem by removing a new raft of people from access to justice is a peculiar way to go about it.
Much has been said about personal injury. There is no doubt—the reasons have been properly spelled out—that, because personal injury often involves being maimed and disabled, it is of particular importance that people should be able to obtain compensation. I have no doubt that, under the legislation as it is drafted and under the rules as they will be introduced, many people with valid claims will be deprived of access to justice and of success in relation to those claims.
Under the legal aid system, personal injury legal aid has been one of the most successful sectors in terms of good results—I think that 91 per cent. was the figure quoted—so why has that sector been chosen as the one to be deprived of all access to legal aid? It beats me. It is ridiculous when the service is a small component of the total legal aid bill and the results have been so successful. There seems to be some hint of movement on that point. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider moving some way towards ensuring that the most vulnerable in society are still provided with access to legal aid.
Another issue on legal aid has not been touched on. There seems to be a general assumption, which I find curious, that just because certain issues do not involve personal injury and do not fall within the restricted categories that will be laid down in clause 29, the people affected should also be deprived of legal aid. Indeed, I understand the instruments to carry that out have already been drafted and are awaiting the passage of the Bill.
I am the first to accept that much litigation concerns commercial issues, where people may reasonably be required to make sound value judgments and where they


may have the funds necessary to fund their own litigation—classic areas where conditional fee agreements might work—but, as time goes on, legal aid will be withdrawn from many categories of litigation that are outside personal injury. The moment a case emerges, people will realise that they deserve support.
I give one example. There is much litigation concerning property rights. As I have experienced as a lawyer and an advocate—it has happened since the middle ages—frequently, the rich seek to assert property rights on those who cannot afford to litigate. The disputes involve rights of way and boundaries, and often concern people who have very limited means. Often, the redress that they seek is not damages, but an injunction, or some other form of protection against those who try to bully them. Much of that still goes on.
Under the legislation, soon, those people, however deserving their claim, will no longer be eligible for legal aid in any shape or form. Such litigants or potential litigants will not be able to get a conditional fee agreement. They will be deprived of access to justice. Hon. Members will find their postbags starting to fill with letters from those who, just as in the 19th century and earlier, are saying, "I have no access to justice. I cannot afford it. I have no ready money and no one is prepared to help me." That is scandalous, but it is one of the possible and likely consequences of the legislation, unless the rules, when they are introduced, make allowance and contingency for such possibilities. I do not believe that they will, because the Government appear to be embarked on a blanket approach. I hope that they are not, but it is worth pondering these matters. Personal injury on its own may be the classic example, but there are others.
Much has been said in general praise—the one point that has attracted praise—of the community legal service that is to be set up under the Bill. I have nothing against a community legal service—indeed, I welcome it…x2014;but, first, it will have to be properly funded. If one looks at the way in which that funding will occur, one must have serious doubts about whether sufficient money will be available.
There is a profound irony about the matter. In the past, community legal aid services were provided throughout the country by the high street solicitor. Indeed, one of the features of this country was that it had such a ready availability of legal services. I see the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) shake his head. I am mindful of the fact that the distribution could at times be sporadic, but when the green form scheme was working and when many high street solicitors had not lost their main crust of bread through the conveyancing monopoly, quite a large number were around to provide that service. The irony is that, having gradually started to reduce their number, we are producing a new service that is equally funded by the state to substitute for it. I hope that it provides an adequate service, but the fate of the poor old high street solicitor, who was uniquely dependent on state subsidy through the legal aid fund and other methods, does not bode particularly well.
I have served on the management committee of a law centre in Hammersmith. I am aware of the major contribution that the service can make, but the funding will have to be there, or this part of the Bill is mere puff.
I come to what troubles me most: the criminal defence service. That was where I cut my teeth in my career as a barrister. I started out at the Bar as a circuit practitioner, practising particularly in Kent, which had a reputation for its Bar mess, where people met, spoke, interchanged ideas and practised. It was held up as a model of its kind.
The central feature of the mess was the interchangeability of the advocates' functions. On Monday, one would be prosecuting and, on Tuesday, defending. That could go on. One would be against different ranges of opponents, but the body of advocates was held together by high standards of professional conduct. Professional conduct, especially in matters relating to criminal defence and prosecution work, is central to maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.
With the introduction of the duty solicitor, individuals were often anxious. How right the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was when he mentioned the loneliness of those who are caught up in the criminal justice system. They require reassurance from independent practitioners. I am dubious about the whole system of the state prosecution service that is rapidly developing. Equally, we are going down the wrong road in seeking to provide a criminal defence service. It will undoubtedly be under financial constraints. I share entirely the view that has been expressed that pressure will be placed on defendants by salaried lawyers about the way in which they are represented.
Let me remind the House about countries where such systems have operated. I recall visiting the Soviet Union in the early 1990s when it was turning into Russia. I was struck by the total lack of status of the members of the legal profession whom I met. They were mere ciphers and cogs in the state machine and there was absolutely no confidence in their professional ability or integrity. They were conscious of that and sought to visit Britain to see how our system operated. Yet now we are going precisely in that direction.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is making a most interesting speech. He mentioned Russia, but he also knows a great deal about France. In no way would I equate France with Russia and I have the highest regard for French advocates. However, in the context of what he is saying, does he agree that the French system is far more limited than ours in respect of defending people accused of criminal offences, and that our system is in grave danger shrinking in an area where France is seeking to expand?

Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall return to that point at the end of my speech when I shall refer to the curious drift in respect of our entire legal system, which is underpinned by the Human Rights Act 1998. He is absolutely right to say that other countries have been trying to break out of the proposed system. Countries with inquisitorial systems have always given a lowlier position to the advocate than we have. I believe that our adversarial system of justice has much to commend it, yet it will be unsustainable when the Government's proposals come into effect.

Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend not also aware that in the United States, which has a system that is quite similar


to ours, but has a public defender system, the chief justice of the Supreme Court has warned us against following the American path?

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend and I am aware of that. I remember back in the 1980s a number of American lawyers who had come here on exchange visits making that point. Indeed, I recall an American chief justice making that point 10 years ago and praising the independence and professional integrity of the legal profession here. That brings me to my next issue, which concerns rights of audience and on which I half support the Government and half do not.
I recall a discussion in my inn of court eight years ago when the issue of rights of audience first came up. I took the same view then as I do now. Although there are many benefits of having a Bar that is separate from the solicitors' profession, there is absolutely no justification for denying rights of audience to those who are qualified to exercise them. I have taken that view for a long time and I stand by it now. Therefore, subject to the comments that I made about salaried employees within state defence systems, I have no objection to allowing rights of audience for solicitors and barristers to grow to a parity. I take the view that they are different kinds of advocate. However, if we are going down that road, we need common standards of professional control and there is nothing whatsoever about that in the Bill.
If we seek to develop a system where advocacy is a separate discipline within the legal profession—and I believe that is the correct way to proceed—requiring high standards of probity and conduct as well as competence, as the administration of justice in the courts is impossible without them, there must be common professional standards and a common professional body to assert those standards. The Bill makes no mention of that and we will end up with a hotchpotch.
Jumping back to the issue of conditional fee agreements, it would be wise for the Government to work with the grain. There is no point in putting temptation in people's way. The point was made about disclosure. If one is entitled to a 70 or 100 per cent. uplift on a conditional fee agreement, the temptation not to disclose a document that appears two days before the trial because it scuppers one's client's case becomes considerable. We should try to work with human nature instead of going against it. However, that does not alter the fact that we need good common professional standards for advocates.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire welcomed the extension of rights of audience because it allowed more people into the business of appearing in court. I agree, but, just as I would not wish to deduce from that that all professional standards should disappear and that there should be a free-for-all, it must be accepted—and the Government seem half to accept it—that those who practise in court require certain aptitudes and qualifications. It is like being a surgeon rather than a physician. The sooner we deal with that problem the better. If we are to have a core of advocates drawn from the Bar and from the solicitors' profession, it must be addressed. The Bill's failure to do so is another reason why it appears to be a hotchpotch.
I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time, but I want to raise just a couple of other matters. The Bill includes an interesting provision—which I touched on in

the question that I raised with the Minister—concerning the transfer of powers from the police to the courts in respect of the enforcement of fines, defaulters and arrest warrants. I am sure that that is beneficial. As the Minister knows, the police are so overburdened that they pick up warrants for arrest from a magistrates court only when they are picking up a defendant for a completely different offence. They do not have time to seek people out.
I entirely endorse that change, but it seems to be another matter on which there is not joined-up thinking on the part of the Government as the people who will be asked to carry out those duties are effectively the old certificated bailiffs—the court officers. Although they have powers of arrest, if a defendant resists, they have to let him go—nor can they search him.
If we are to pass such a heavy responsibility to people working outside the police force, it will be necessary to consider what powers they should have. If we are to give them those powers, we must also consider the civil liberties angle. The Bill simply does not address the issue. It is a classic example of the Government saying, "There is a problem here, so we shall simply toss it into another basket". Unless those who are given the responsibility of implementing that part of the Bill have the necessary powers, and a system of control to do so efficiently and in accordance with people's civic rights, there will be problems. I hope that the matter will be addressed in Committee.
Finally let me turn to the point that I half made to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and which causes me concern. Last year, it was my pleasure to participate in the debates on the Human Rights Bill. As is well known in the House, I took the view that the Government were right to incorporate the European convention on human rights. However, since incorporation, I have noticed in various utterances of the Home Secretary—for instance, in respect of the legislation that we passed last year after the Omagh bombing—that far from the incorporation of the European convention being a baseline on which we would try to build, accepting that we might fall short in some areas, but overachieve in others, it is now being used as a delicious mantra that is stuck on the front of every Bill to justify all sorts of actions, many of which we would never have tolerated previously. That is not how I should like to see the Human Rights Act 1998 work.
When one considers this legislation and asks the question, "Looking at it in the round, will the human rights of the citizens of England and Wales"—I cannot speak for Scotland and the clauses applying to it—"be enhanced by it?", the answer is wholly and compellingly negative. Until someone can persuade me that we can do better than that, I cannot give the Bill my support.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would be convenient for hon. Members to be reminded that the 15-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches operates from now until 9 pm.

7 pm

Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, should declare my interest—I am a member of the Bar, but do not practise. Some may say that I am not good enough to get any work, but I always admire those hon. Members who are able to have a career as a Member of Parliament and


also to practise at the Bar or as a solicitor. I find this job so time consuming that I do not have time to do anything else.
Before I was a member of the Bar, I was a solicitor. I spent three months in private practice. I did not last very long because I forgot to bill clients. The basis of being in the private sector is sending out bills; otherwise, one's principal cannot pay one. Therefore, my very nice principal, John Gittens, suggested that I should go into local government—where I did not have to charge people for my services. I stayed there for two years, and then worked in a law centre in Leicester, which I shall mention a little later in my speech. I therefore do not have the dynastic pedigree of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who was not only a banister but the son of a silk.
I welcome the Bill, and agree with the Minister of State that it is a landmark piece of legislation and something of which we can all be proud. It continues along the route that the Lord Chancellor set for himself, from 1 May 1997, when he decided that he would be a reforming Lord Chancellor who was prepared to accept the integrity of our legal system—acknowledging that there were problems with it, but also bringing it up to date. Therefore, in that sense, the Bill is totally in keeping with the Government's philosophy.
I think that we are all proud of our legal system, although, when we hear about miscarriages of justice, we acknowledge that there are problems within it. It will take another Bill, on another day, to deal with all those problems. This Bill is about providing access to justice.
I was disappointed to note that only two Opposition Members were prepared to debate that issue, but then I saw the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) enter the Chamber—he is, of course, worth 100 of the other Opposition Back Benchers—and knew that my colleague from Leicestershire, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was saved.

Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: I shall not allow interventions, as time is very short and many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute.
I therefore commend the Lord Chancellor on the Bill. I should also like to say—as there have been comments in the press about his commitment to equal opportunities—that I strongly welcome the way in which he has appointed so many black and Asian silks. He has a record of appointing more silks from the ethnic minority communities than any other Lord Chancellor at this point in office. I thank him for the way in which he has sought to attend so many meetings at which we have addressed the issue of diversity. He is also not afraid to take on the vested interests of the legal profession. Hon. Members, too, should not be afraid to do so, although many of us are from that profession.
I was astonished to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield on the need for more money for legal aid. He is a new hon. Member. I remember being in opposition, for almost 12 years, when eminent persons—such as the former Attorney-General, the right hon.

and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—were telling the House that there was no more money for legal aid.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: I shall, as I mentioned the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Grieve: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I expressed myself badly, but I do not think that that is what I said. The point I was making was that the sums that the previous Government were prepared to provide for legal aid rose exponentially. The previous Government cannot be criticised for starving legal aid, because it provided vast sums of cash. I accept—as I did at the start of my speech—that we have reached a crisis point, which is why I said at the outset that I supported the Government's attempts to address the issue.

Mr. Vaz: We can spend only so much taxpayers' money on legal aid. It is quite right that there should be a cap, and that the money should be focused and given to those members of the profession with expertise in a particular field to represent individuals. That is precisely what the Bill seeks to do—to ensure that the enormous resources in the legal aid budget are properly targeted. Legal aid—the green form—exists not to provide trusts for solicitors and barristers but to allow people to prosecute their cases before the courts of this land.
I am glad that we are to reform the Legal Aid Board, and should like to pay tribute to the work of Henry Hodge, the deputy chairman of the Legal Aid Board. He has been a breath of fresh air in that organisation. However, I hope that we shall not simply change the organisation's name, but that there will be a new attitude in how the new Legal Services Commission operates.
Many of my constituents come to my surgery and complain about the time it takes to get the Legal Aid Board to approve legal aid cases. I hope that, in the new-found zeal that we clearly have, we shall ensure that such cases are processed as quickly as possible. I welcome the Government's commitment to prioritising urgent cases, by coding them, which I hope will ensure that the changes bring positive results.
We want the right lawyers for the right type of work. It is not possible for every single lawyer to be an expert in welfare law, immigration law, disability law and criminal law. There are not many experts in criminal law at Clifford Chance—which may have merged since I last looked at the list—or at Slaughter and May. They are not experts in criminal law. It would therefore be absurd if we simply made criminal legal aid available to every firm of solicitors.
The Bill seeks to ensure that contracts are issued to those solicitors and members of the Bar who are expert in their field. That will enable better justice—not only better access to justice, but a better quality of justice—and ensure that people are properly represented by those who have an interest in those fields.
I strongly welcome the establishment of the community legal service. I have always felt that we need to have a much more coherent and cohesive approach in the provision of legal services. I am delighted that the Minister of State has chosen Leicester as one the associate


pilot schemes for operation of the new community legal service, and believe that the new commission will pull together all the various strands.
I worry about the possibility that the service may be better in some parts of the country, which have forward-thinking local authorities, and that it may not be so good in other parts of the country. I worry also about the situation in rural areas and constituencies. Perhaps we have to examine that matter much more carefully. Nevertheless, I welcome the commitment to creating a service that is not only national in outlook but deals particularly with local circumstances.
I commend the work of the citizens advice bureaux and law centres. Some people believe that lawyers are the only ones who can give advice, but that is simply not true. For two years, I worked in the Highfields in Belgrave law centre, in Leicester, and learned everything that I know about immigration law from immigration advisers and workers, who were not legally qualified but understood the working of the law.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber and has not listened to the whole debate. We also have a time limit. There are very few Opposition Members in the Chamber, and I am sure that he will want to make his own speech.
The problem with law centres is not only underfunding but the fact that they are located only in certain areas, in our big cities and big towns. We have to ensure that if we are to provide legal services through organisations such as law centres, they are funded in different parts of the country.
CABs should be commended. They are composed of voluntary workers who daily go in there and, in some cases, provide complex advice. For a few years, I worked as a volunteer in the CAB in Richmond, in Surrey, when I lived there. The quality of advice given by my co-workers was incredible. The amount of information that came from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux was amazing. We must ensure that the CABs are part of the system. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is nodding, will ensure that that happens.

Sir Nicholas Lye11: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: I will not allow interventions because we are on a time limit and a lot of hon. Members wish to speak.

Sir Nicholas Lye11: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman cherishing his time but—I say this with all friendliness—will he clarify his position? I understood that he was the parliamentary private secretary to the Law Officers. He is quite entitled to make a speech, and it will be welcomed by Government Front Benchers that he is commending the Bill. However, could we have a clarification of his position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I say two things? First, there is injury time for interventions so that an hon. Member under a time limit is not penalised. Secondly,

it is entirely up to hon. Members to make their own position clear if that is necessary. There is certainly no rule so far as the Chair is concerned.

Mr. Vaz: As has been mentioned, the Bill is led by the Lord Chancellor's Department. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) says, I am the PPS to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. This is not a Bill from our Department.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: No, I will not.
I have a problem with the words "criminal defence service," and I think that we should find a new title. It reminds me of the criticism that was used against the Crown Prosecution Service before the dynamic David Calvert-Smith arrived, when it was referred to as the "criminal protection society". The criminal defence service is a service to provide defence for alleged criminals. I know that people do not like the words—which come from the United States—but perhaps the public defender service would be a better title. We need to have people who are expert in defence work, as we have on the prosecution side through the Crown Prosecution Service.
I support and welcome conditional fees. I saw a film last week called "A Civil Action", starring John Travolta, which was all about conditional fees. As the film was made in Hollywood, the lawyer mortgaged his house, the lights were taken out and the fax machine was sold because he wanted to get to the wire to make sure that the case was dealt with. He won the case, and they settled for $8 million. However, the clients would have liked a better settlement. I support the idea of conditional fees, but we must be wary of the fact that people may settle when they think that they have their fees in order. I am sure that we will look at that.
There is a challenge for the legal profession. I say to the president of the Law Society, Michael Mathews, and the chairman of the Bar, Dan Brennan, that they need to get their professions in order. There are bad solicitors and bad barristers—as there are bad practitioners in every profession—but it should not be up to Parliament each time to try to draw attention to the fact that there are problems in the professions. I hope that they—both men of integrity and both leaders of their professions—will ensure that something is done to deal with that problem.
Finally, I commend and echo the words of my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who said on 14 December 1998:
I believe that the Bill makes a genuine contribution to making justice more accessible to the general public than it is at the moment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1201.]
I strongly support those views, and I look forward to serving on the Committee, with all the Opposition Members who are present, to debate the matters.

Dr. Lynda Clark: I am conscious that so many hon. Members in the Chamber have experience in England, while I do not. I am


non-practising member of the English Bar; my practice is entirely in Scotland, and I declare an interest as a practising member of the Scottish Bar.
I should declare also that I was a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and, in that capacity, I tried very hard to deal with some of the practical problems that we saw in trying to administer the legal aid system. We looked at the issues that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) illustrated. I was conscious that in trying to administer the fund, the problem was not in relation to personal injury, but very much in relation to family work; the bill for which, as can be seen from statistics, is astronomic. There seems to be no limit on it.
I pointed out that if we had legislation, as we do, in terms of divorce that leads to disputes—for example, the fact that we have a system based on irretrievable breakdown on complicated grounds that we have to prove and on which people wish to fight—there is no wonder that we end up with a family law system that is very expensive. One obvious way of reducing the bill would be to give some consideration to our family law, and other law.
I get very annoyed when lawyers get the blame for complicated legislation when we know full well that it is not lawyers that make the legislation, but this House. Since I entered the House, I have railed at the form of our legislation, which is appalling. We need to consider the way in which we make legislation, so that people can understand it. Perhaps we can then reduce overall costs in relation to lawyers.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I touch briefly on the Scottish position. I welcome the main changes proposed in clause 27, which extend the possibility of legal aid in Scotland. They give powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland to prescribe certain proceedings for legal aid where representation may be granted without reference to the financial limits. That opens up new possibilities for Scotland, but it is intended to apply to certain categories of work, such as mental health proceedings. However, the possibilities are endless.
I have not yet heard any hon. Member suggest in the debate that the present system of legal aid funding and delivery is working successfully. We all seem to be agreed that it is not. We have not heard any alternative proposal, and it is plain that dealing with the present system—however one does so—is a difficult task.

Mr. Burnett: I listed a number of instances of constructive criticism and further steps that could be taken to open up justice to middle-income Britain, for example. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will agree that they were fairly compelling.

Dr. Clark: My apologies to the hon. Gentleman, but they could not have been that compelling because I cannot remember them. I will read them with interest in Hansard.
I would not associate myself with some of the anti-lawyer sentiments that I have heard expressed—not so much today, but perhaps in the other place. I do not accept that the inadequacies of the present legal aid system are the responsibility of lawyers. Politicians must take their fair share of the blame. I am not deliberately

looking at Conservative Members in relation to that, but they did have 20 years or so to try to sort the matter out. Lawyers deserve some credit for trying to fill in some of the gaps and the unmet need. It is lawyers, not politicians, who have done that work, often unfunded, to try to solve the problem.
Like many who have spoken today, I am a strong supporter of the independence of the legal profession in a democracy. A strong, independent legal profession with expert knowledge that is able and willing to advise and represent citizens—even in the most unpopular causes—is essential. Many lawyers in other regimes, to my great distress, have died, been imprisoned or been ostracised because of their profession.
Independent expert lawyers who are committed to do their best for their clients in the interests of justice are not to be found only in the arrangements that exist in England and Wales. I hope that the House will bear with me as I mention the Scottish tradition. In Scotland, the tradition has long been that the Crown has prosecuted in the higher courts through advocates depute, who are normally members of the Bar but not necessarily so.
During the time when they work as advocates depute, they are not free, as in England, to accept any defence instructions. They are entirely employed by Crown prosecution work. They normally do this for a substantial period; usually three years, but sometimes much longer. They are paid a fixed salary, which is not excessive—it is quite low, at approximately £50,000—to cover all the prosecution work that they do. That means that their time as an advocate is entirely taken up with Crown work. If they have any free time, which is rare, they can do civil work. They are not paid per case and they do not have the interchange that is common in England.
There are problems in the Scottish system, but lack of independence is not one of them. The advocates depute are known for their independence of mind. They are often appointed directly from that position to be sheriffs in the lower court or judges in the Court of Session.
That model has some interest for the debate. I do not accept that employment per se undermines independence. In any training for lawyers it is important to ensure that the principle of independence and the acknowledgement of the interests of justice are bitten into their souls. I accept that it is important to encourage lawyers to get the widest possible experience and I certainly would not support a system whereby one spends one's whole life prosecuting or indeed defending. It is important to have the knowledge and expertise that come with doing a wide variety of work.
In the other place, there was mention of the experimental scheme in Scotland called the Public Defence Solicitors Office. That was gifted to us by the previous Administration; perhaps it was one of the gifts that we did not appreciate at the time. It is odd that, having gifted to Scotland a public defender system, the Tories now find the creation of the same system in England so overwhelmingly terrible.
I acknowledge that the scheme introduced in Scotland through the 1997 legislation is limited to only six solicitors and is designed as a pilot to test the viability of providing citizens who require state-funded assistance in criminal cases with an alternative to private practice solicitors, but, thanks to the previous Administration, those solicitors are now doing defence work as employees.
The scheme has been in operation for only about six months and I am told that already about 24 per cent. of clients are voluntary self-referrals. No clear conclusions can be drawn from the scheme at this stage, but other countries, such as Canada, have long experience of using state-employed lawyers in a mixed system, and surveys of clients, peer groups, prosecutors and judges there have shown high levels of satisfaction.
In 1997, the Canadian Bar Association said that in the criminal field
it appears that the staff model"—
that is, using an employed Bar—
is capable of delivering the same outcomes for lower costs than the private lawyer model or slightly better outcomes for the same cost.
I admire the English system, but it is not the only possible model for encouraging independence in our lawyers. One of the aims of the Bill is to extend access to justice—there has been widespread support for that from hon. Members of all parties—and it will be judged on whether it delivers that. The previous Administration failed in that aim.
About 20 years ago, I helped to establish a law centre in Dundee, and I am pleased to learn that so many hon. Members have been active in law centres. Even as a young lawyer, I recognised how inadequate was the provision of legal services. I pay tribute to the many lawyers who have contributed in their various ways to help to meet some of the unmet legal need, which is so great that a more directed approach is essential, as are substantial funds.
Law, and access to law, is one of the great tools of social justice. By opening up the law and making assistance available to many more people we make it more likely that Governments and institutions will be challenged successfully when they act unlawfully.
There have been improvements to the scheme in relation to contingency fees. I have never been a big fan of contingency fees, preferring the Scottish model of speculative fees, with no uplift provided, but I welcome the improvements that the Government are introducing in the Bill, and especially the proposed new section 58A of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, to allow rules of court to be made in respect of taxing of costs. There should be a challenge in the rules to a contingency fee in which the uplift is unjustified, as part of the taxing process.
I welcome the proposal not to allow the contingency fee to encroach on damages. It is important to remember that, because damages in Scotland and in England and Wales are very much lower than in America, for example, we cannot draw successful comparisons with the use of contingency fees in other jurisdictions. The damages here may increase, which has both advantages and disadvantages, or contingency fees may not be as welcome here as they are elsewhere because the risks involved may be out of proportion to the amount of damages that may in the end be recovered.
I do not accept every single item in the Bill, but I welcome and support it as a package.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark), I welcome parts of the Bill, largely because

it represents progress on the part of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor towards my point of view, which I set out in two Bills designed to introduce a national legal service. He is clearly coming towards that populist point of view, aimed at demythologising the law and breaking restrictive practices by having an employed and more competitive legal service. We did not hear anything about that from Conservative Members.
The Campaign for a National Legal Service, of which I am chairman, welcomes all repentant sinners, including, I hope, my hon. Friend the Minister. The problem is that the Bill does not go far enough. I am worried about the fact that it is clearly Treasury driven. The Treasury wants to stop exponential growth in expenditure of any kind. It does not do much about the common agricultural policy, which is exponential in much the same way, but it will do what it can about the law, even at the cost of reducing the access to justice of the mass of the population.
Clearly, the Lord Chancellor has been given a brief to cut and, in his naive, youthful enthusiasm, he and the Minister originally launched into that mission of cutting, boots and all. They larded it with attacks on fat cats—or perhaps I should say other fat cats—but they went for substantial cuts in the legal aid budget. After a horrified reaction, they resiled, and the Bill represents part of that process of resiling. The cuts have been diluted and there are proposals to extend services into other areas. The Bill is something of a rag-bag as a result, but the extensions into other areas are very welcome.
The Campaign for a National Legal Service has emphasised the need for an employed service. Private practice is inherently more expensive and less efficient, with higher overheads, so, if there were two services competing and the consumers could choose whether to pay fees or to proceed through a legally aided public service, that would be the best way of bringing access to justice to the people. That has been our basic principle and it is important to acknowledge that the Bill represents some progress in that direction.
I argued earlier for a public defender service. Such services can be most efficient; they have been efficient in California and they are efficient in Hong Kong and New South Wales. However, the services could and should be provided through law centres, which are also efficient. We know that £8 billion a year is being paid for legal services; if that amount were divided between competing services—an employed service and private practice—and with the addition of some public funding, there would be enough money to provide a competitive service to the people. That would also ensure that lawyers compete to serve the purposes of the people, who would have the power of choice.
A pause for thought to consider how best we could reform legal services to make them available to the mass of the people would have suggested going down the path that I have described. The worry about the Bill is that we did not do that; we went in backwards. First, we hoped for cuts, and it was only when cuts proved impossible that we considered alternatives. However, because we did not make those alternatives as firm and definite as they needed to be, we went only part of the way towards the necessary conclusion. That is the problem; the Bill is not based on a fundamental rethink of how we can best bring legal services to the mass of the people. It has always been the Labour party's hope to provide a national legal health service—a universal service according to people's


ability to pay—and to enact the right to representation and set up a framework to secure it. We did not approach the matter in that way; we went into it backwards and that is what is disappointing about the Bill—one step forwards, one step back. However, there has been some progress, although I regret that the opportunity to make further progress has been wasted.
The Bill is not only a wasted opportunity, but a risk. Unfortunately, that risk is shouldered mainly by the poor, not by the legal profession, although its members are certainly frightened—the representations that I have received from solicitors show fear and nervousness—because they are faced with a substantial change. The poor are being transferred from a publicly supported, public service of legal aid to a competitive market. That market might offer rich pickings to big firms of solicitors and insurance companies, but it will not necessarily help to advance the cause of the poor in compensation cases.
There have been drastic cuts to legal aid, but it is not responsible to make such cuts until we have an alternative that we know will work and will take on the burden carried by legal aid until now.
Supporters of legal aid must never cease to emphasise that it is a highly successful public service. In civil cases that reached judgment in 1995-96, the proportion of cases in which there was either a settlement or a judgment in favour of the assisted person was 91 per cent.
That is not me speaking but the current Lord Chancellor, who pointed that out three years ago. He was right then and it is not right to cut legal aid as we are doing. Legal aid is being cut for minimal savings. The budget for civil legal aid in 1996 was £1,276 million, of which £436 million came back to the legal aid fund. In personal injury cases, £225 million was paid out and all but £37 million came back into the fund. We are doing great damage to poor people's access to representation for the sake of £37 million. We are forcing them off the great enabler—guaranteed legal aid—into a risky system that might not work.
Some lawyers would argue that it is wrong in principle to do that. I cite one who spoke in the House of Lords:
I regard contingency fees in any shape or form, however, diluted, as abhorrent",
at which some noble Lords cried, "Hear, hear!" They were probably hereditary peers whose views do not count for much in such matters. The noble Lord continued:
The argument that professional standards are so high that there would be no risks does not impress. Lawyers are ordinary human beings. No lawyer at the front end of litigation should be in the position that the ability to pay next month's mortgage turns on the outcome of the case. Litigation turns on advocates being trusted by the courts and by one another to play fair. Flirting with contingency fees is another gimmick to avoid state responsibility and to secure justice on the cheap. Like so many bargain basement practices, the lawyers would be no exception to the risk that shoddy standards would result."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 1989; Vol. 505, c. 1326]
That is a magnificent quote. It came from a speech by Lord Irvine of Lairg, now our Lord Chancellor. I agree with him on that matter; it is a risk. The insurance products are not developed; we do not know whether they will be available. I have seen one system that asks for a non-refundable payment of £200 merely to look at the case. That will be a considerable burden for ordinary

people. There will be cherry picking. It will encourage the fat cats. Big practices will develop to take the best, safest and easiest cases. I cannot see how the system will help the poor and the vulnerable, who will be forced to hawk their case round to try to find a firm of solicitors who will fit it into the risk portfolio that firms will need to have. The poor will need to find a firm that can carry the burden of the expense of the medical evidence and the necessary research. That would be a big burden for small practices. In Grimsby, I am impressed by the effective service provided by competing small practices, but they cannot carry such burdens so it will be difficult for people to find solicitors to take their cases.
When the tobacco court battle ground to a halt, two legal firms spent and lost £2.5 million because the litigants were denied legal aid. Mr. Day, a member of one of the firms stated:
This is the only multiparty action that has been funded under the `no win, no fee' scheme … The fact that we've been blown out means the chances of other firms taking on this sort of risk is next to nil. Plaintiffs taking on corporate giants are not going to get access to justice. It's a gloomy day.
It will indeed be a gloomy day if such situations prevail. It is essential that we provide a service and protection for vulnerable people—the less well-off, who do not know or understand the problem. We should not replace legal aid until we know that we have a system that will take the strain and serve the purposes of such people. The matter is uncertain. The Lord Chancellor's research paper "The Price of Success" points out that there are many unanswered questions about the contingency fee system. The point is that we are hitting the poor and the risks of the measure are all faced by those least able to bear them.
However, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who is now sitting on the Treasury Bench, will note that my attitude is now changing from criticism almost to sycophancy. I welcome the attack on restrictive legal practices, although we should take it further and abolish QCs—I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has returned. We should penalise the late return of briefs, which has been such a problem in the legal aid system. A few years ago, some research in Sheffield showed the problems of representation for ordinary people; they get a service that falls off the back of the practice. The brief is dumped back on the practice at the last minute.
I welcome the independent review of complaints and the strengthening of the role of the ombudsman because the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has been a disastrous failure. Any Member of Parliament who has had to deal with the office regards it as a cumbersome, delaying, pettifogging mess. I welcome the Legal Services Commission; we should have had that years ago—it was part of my Bill. The commission should be independent; I do not want it to be dependent on political changes from the top—the measure gives a great deal of power to the Lord Chancellor.
Most of all, I welcome the community legal service, which cannot come quick enough. Law centres must be the backbone of that service, providing demystified services to people on the high street. It is tragic that Brent law centre is going bust as we discuss the Bill, and other law centres, including the one in Humberside, which has done wonderful work and is now laying people off, are struggling to maintain themselves. The need for a community legal service must be met quickly.
I welcome all that, although it does not go far enough and I am not sure that we shall see the extension to service predicted in the Bill because the civil legal budget is not ring-fenced. It depends on savings being made in the criminal legal aid system, and they may not be forthcoming. Crime keeps going up, and cases are becoming more complicated. The money must be ring-fenced if we are to provide extra services. I would specify the grounds on which money can be made available and strengthen the provision of service.
I must ask myself at this point how I will vote on the Bill. I shall, of course, consult my legal advisers. My QC—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway—has come into the Chamber to advise me since I began my speech, and I hope that he will not return my brief at the last minute.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman before we learn his decision.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I had not intended to speak, but have been provoked into it by the refusal of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to give way. I should have been quite satisfied if he had.
It is good for my soul to make an honest confession of my interests. As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has heard me say before, I practised as a high street solicitor for 22 miserable years, but went straight about 11 years ago. I must also confess that I was a junior Minister at the Lord Chancellor's Department for three and a half years, which represents at least a loss of innocence and at worst a hideous handicap for speaking in this debate.
The point of entry between myself and the hon. Member for Leicester, East was his eulogy on citizens advice bureaux, to which I would happily have sung a chorus. I was one of the few who helped to start the CAB in Shirley in Solihull as long ago as 1973, when my constituency was represented by the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who is sitting just in front of me. We started that very good CAB 26 years ago, and I have the honour still to be its president.
If the Minister or the Solicitor-General were to assist CABs further, they would have my support, and they would do a handsome piece of work by helping CABs to complete computer links in order to share best practice, quite literally at the press of a button. The Government would distinguish themselves by providing financial assistance to the voluntary side.
This has been a rather good debate, and I am sorry not to have been here for all of it. I was particularly impressed by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) who developed the theme of his anxiety about the idea that a judge on the payroll of the state might preside over proceedings contested between two other people on the payroll of the state.
The right hon. Gentleman exonerated judges from any suggestion that they might follow what was thought to be their master's way, but was concerned that an employed plaintiff lawyer and defence lawyer in a civil case, or prosecution and defence lawyers in a criminal case, might be jointly motivated to get matters over with. It is dangerous even to contemplate that such a possibility should exist.
When I was at the Lord Chancellor's Department, tremendous arguments rattled, almost always unsuccessfully, to and from the Council of Legal Education in the pursuit of wider rights of audience. In particular, it was suggested that prosecutors employed by the Crown Prosecution Service should be able to appear in the higher courts. At that time, they could not, and they still cannot.
The Bill introduces public defenders, presumably with rights of audience in the higher courts. How wide will it throw accession to rights of audience for the employed lawyers? I would not be hostile to that, but if the CPS could not have rights of audience under the existing system, why should public defenders have those rights? In the name of logic, must we not treat the two the same?
I may be trespassing into matters best dealt with at the Committee stage. The points of detail for rights of audience are probably best left until then, but I give the Government Front-Bench team notice, which they scarcely need, that I shall certainly explore rights of audience in Committee.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does my hon. Friend realise that he is dealing with a point on which the Government have offered virtually no detail? We simply do not know how the criminal defence service will be expected to work, and what the Crown Prosecution Service will be expected to do in the higher courts remains unclear.

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend enlarges on the unhappier aspects of the Bill, and I fear that I can do nothing to mitigate the gravity of the problem that he sees.
We heard a most interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) who generously took an inordinate number of interventions, including one from me. However, I never received an answer to my question to him, and I shall put it firmly on the record once again because it is worthy of an answer, if not tonight, at some later stage.
Some people have spoken in favour of conditional fee arrangements, and some against. I am not coming down on one side or the other, although I marginally favour them. A critical question lies at the centre of the conditional fee issue, however. Simply, what is a win? How do we define success? The lawyer will have an interest in having the threshold of a win set as low as possible so that he may overcome it to receive his uplift. The client has a contrasting interest in the highest possible threshold so that only the best possible outcome rates as a win.
There is a mismatch between the interests of the lawyer and those of the client. There is a further mismatch in that the lawyer is a professional who is about that kind of question day in and day out. He is trained in these matters, and he understands the question. The client does not. That is why I asked the hon. and learned Member for Medway whether he had ever had any difficulty in determining what was a win. I asked whether he agreed that there were circumstances in which an individual client was entitled to independent third party advice on whether what was being recommended to him as a win was in fact fair. That question remains unanswered.

Dr. Lynda Clark: I agree that there are practical difficulties. For example, is a settlement proposal a win,


or is it not a win? In the context of a contingency fee, it is difficult to decide whether the case should be settled if there is not enough money on the table. Those difficulties arise under the new system, whereas they did not arise under the old system in the same way.

Mr. Burnett: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), and we have discussed the matter several times in Committee. Does he agree that the problem is even more exacerbated in matrimonial matters? What is a win in a matrimonial case?

Mr. Taylor: In my personal experience, there is no such thing as a win in a matrimonial matter.
Perhaps this is the moment for me to talk about the contribution in chief made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark). Here is my lost innocence: the hon. and learned Lady does not blame the lawyers. [Interruption.] I am sure that she said that. I have to modify that statement: I do not entirely blame the lawyers.
Has the hon. and learned Lady, or anyone else in the House, never come across a criminal case which proceeded in the following fashion? The lawyer intercepts the client, or vice versa and, after a degree of consideration, the time for which is logged, a not guilty plea is entered. There then follow a couple of adjournments, which are well argued for. Then come the preparation of the depositions, the committal proceedings and a couple of trips to the prison or the cells. The case finally turns up at the Crown court and a jury is empanelled. The plea is then changed to guilty and the bill is submitted. That certainly happens, and I believe that legal aid has been abused in some such cases.
There is another question that I do not think has been addressed so far today, although I confess that I have not been present throughout the debate. Personal injury cases have rightly been mentioned, but what about the duty solicitor schemes? I thought that they were one of the best aspects of legal aid, and certainly represented the best unit cost and the best value for money in the legal aid system.
When I was—that sounds like an old soldier talking, does it not? When I was at the Lord Chancellor's Department, the best value for money in the legal aid bill was provided by groups—or panels, call them what one will—of duty solicitors. Those people were prepared to represent unrepresented defendants. They had to show competence in a particular subject to be on the panel in the first place. They were then paid legal aid rates, and had every incentive to wrap up the case on the day that it started and get back to the office. That is what one did when it was one's turn to be the duty solicitor. Those schemes were good, and the Bill will mean the end of them.
As I near the end of my speech, I shall declare one more interest. I started a duty solicitor scheme. That was before such schemes were permitted; there was no statutory legal cover in those days. In fact, such schemes were offensive to the Law Society's basic rules about the client's ability to choose his own lawyer. We had to go to the Law Society and beg for a derogation from what was then called rule 2—although one would have to look in an ancient tome to find that rule with the same number

as it had in my day. That is what we had to do to run a pre-statutory duty solicitor scheme in Solihull, where nearly all good things start.

Mr. Bercow: And come to an end?

Mr. Taylor: I think not.
All our speeches are subject to a time limit today, and I have no intention of trespassing either on eternity or on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having heard what I had to say—when I first stood up, 1 did not know what that would be—I have come to the conclusion that I am against the Bill and will vote against it.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I declare an interest, albeit the minimal interest of being at the end of a list of consultants on the headed notepaper of the firm in which I was previously a partner.
If it were only a few extra pounds that were needed to save the legal aid fund, the House would probably support the provision of that sum. However, the encouraging thing about what the Government are doing is that they are not seeking to save money—at least, not in the short term. The budget for the coming year is higher than the previous Administration's projected budget.
Radical change is needed in the legal aid system that we inherited, because it is costly but still fails to live up to the demands placed upon it. For 25 years, before I entered the House, I was regularly engaged in civil legal aid work and my delight at being elected to Parliament was almost matched by the knowledge that I would not have to fill in another legal aid form.
The old system had become bureaucratic. I have estimated that about 20 per cent. of the time of people doing legal aid work is spent filling in forms, reporting to the Legal Aid Board, and so on. Even within the franchising system, that is still a significant, time-wasting, frustrating and costly element. Having spent 20 per cent. of 25 years doing that, I hope that my first five years in Parliament will be more productive than the five years of my life that I wasted filling in forms.
Of greater concern, however, is the injustice that the present system metes out. One was frequently asked to advise on a case that had little merit, but, because the individual met the qualifications for legal aid and was within scope, one would take counsel's opinion, and counsel would suggest that the case was worth a try.
The injustice was not, of course, done to the happy recipient of the state's generosity, but to the unhappy defendant, who was often bound to settle, perhaps unjustly, because the cost of defending a case against a legally aided party was prohibitive. Perhaps there was no great sympathy for a defendant who was an insurer, but the justice of the case was still questionable.
Other claims were abandoned either because the claimants were out of scope for legal aid—a growing phenomenon because of the changes that were made to cap expenditure—or because the contribution called for was so significant that it deterred the would-be litigant, even if he or she had a good case. Litigation had therefore become a pastime for no one but the rich and the poor.
The present system also encourages waste. That is not only the waste in the administration of the process, which I have already mentioned, but the waste that results from the incentive for lawyers to make the most of the legal aid certificate. Milking the legal aid system, although it may be done by only a minority of lawyers, will inevitably be a temptation when there is no one at the "point of sale" to challenge the wisdom of the procedures adopted.
Last night I asked my taxi driver, "Why do you go by the shortest route?" He replied, "Because you're sitting next to me." He admitted that when students used his services at the expense of a language school, he took the long route because someone else was paying. That is what happens, or at least what can happen, with the existing legal aid system.
For those reasons, among others, I welcome the Government's initiative in the Bill. However, I have some comments on two aspects of it. First, there is the extension of conditional fees, which most hon. Members have spoken about. Secondly, there are the contracting arrangements proposed for the delivery of services.
As for conditional fees, I see no reason why a solicitor should not back his or her judgment. They are not being asked to become bookmakers simply to display some confidence in their own advice. I learned of the benefits of conditional fees by accident when I realised that appearing at industrial tribunals was regarded as a non-contentious activity and was therefore eligible for conditional fees. In such non-contentious proceedings it is possible to operate on a conditional fees basis, and I and many other practitioners have found that that provides an effective opportunity for litigants to take their cases, and for the practitioners who have offered that opportunity to be rewarded. The new system gives a greater incentive because of the possible extra bonus available.
I have experience of some of the benefits of conditional fees. First, when one is on them, one is careful about advising that a case is worth pursuing. More especially, one does no more than one must to bring the case to a successful conclusion. The extraneous process with which one can become bound up is to be avoided at any—indeed, one's own—cost. Proper reward based on successful outcome is a challenge that lawyers should seize with both hands. Coupled with the rule reforms, it should enable lawyers to practise real law rather than the tedium of unnecessary procedure for the benefit of no one.
There is also the opportunity of the completely new market of people with genuine disputes to settle but who cannot afford the process under the present system. That is the Government's new deal job creation scheme for lawyers. The legal profession should not complain. It also means that litigants who have not before had the chance will be able to take their cases to law.
I have a reservation about how the rules on disclosure of a conditional fee agreement would operate. To put defendants, such as insurers, on notice of the rate of uplift would be to put them on notice of the perceived strength of the case. The present conditions on legal aid certificates do not make that necessary.
Legal aid, by its nature, is limited. My limited experience suggests that few people with reasonable cases that would have passed the merit test of the Legal Aid Board, or even, under a franchising agreement, of a

solicitor, will be denied the opportunity of a CFA. Solicitors already offer no win, no fee opportunities in the national and local press every week.
I am also convinced that the Government are right about the purchase of legal services. A mix of private and voluntary sector provision based on expertise and price will provide the most effective delivery system. Although great play is often made of the theoretical choice that litigants enjoy in choosing representatives, the reality is that it is not as great as it seems. Under the present system, litigants choose their solicitor by recommendation, by where they live or by referral. They often have neither the knowledge nor the ability to judge quality until it is sometimes too late.
The franchising arrangements that have already developed have to some extent been helpful in ensuring that the firms selected for particular areas of work are competent. However, I have reservations about the measurement of that competence, which seems to be based more on compliance with procedures than on expertise offered or success rate. I hope that, under the new regime, more effective means of monitoring results will ensure that high-quality services are provided. That applies in two situations in particular. First, as contracts are available to non-legally qualified bodies, the advice that they give must be monitored by legally qualified personnel, not simply by an administrative procedure.
The second concerns the extension of rights of advocates. I believe that that extension is correct, but it is essential that the advocates let loose are competent in advocacy. Many solicitors would acknowledge that they are not particularly good at it; some banisters are not, but they find out sooner.
Even the present franchise arrangements are valuable, in that successful franchisees gain experience in a particular area of law rather than, as previously, dealing with areas for the first time. That applies especially in sparsely populated areas, where practitioners dabble in all manner of work. While the contracting system is open to the criticism that there may be restriction of choice, it will ensure that the lawyer acting in a case is experienced in the field to which the contract relates, and, I hope, subject to monitoring of results. In many ways, a client with the benefit of a contracted lawyer will have more to be sure than the private paying client who chooses his own.
This is a good news Bill. It is good news for the public purse because it discourages waste and inefficiency. It is good news for clients, many of whom will have access to the conditional fee regime for the first time. For the less well off, there is a virtual Government guarantee that the lawyer is competent. Finally, it is good for the legal profession, which will have the opportunity to specialise more, achieve unit cost savings and provide a more satisfying service for its clients.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I declare an interest as a barrister for more than 20 years. I also lecture on law from time to time. I listened with great interest to the enthusiastic speech of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster). He said that it was a very good Bill for everyone. I would say that it is good in parts, a curate's egg of a Bill.
We should welcome the setting up of the community legal service. I was on the committee of the Free Representation Unit, a body set up by the Bar to give free


legal advice in areas of unmet need. Its members included not only barristers but solicitors, social workers and social administration experts. I had the unenviable task of choosing which 15 of the 80 cases that had come in we could service. At that time, some years ago, there was great unmet need in the social welfare field. It is right that lawyers should want to do pro bono work.
The approach with the community legal service suggested in the Bill is a good thing, but we must all share the concern about its funding. The Lord Chancellor said that its funding will be
what is left over … after the prior claims of criminal legal aid have been met."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 738.]

That means that overspending on criminal cases could well lead to a cut in funding to the community legal service. I strongly support the idea of the service, but I hope that it will get the money and means to make it work.
That is a good part of the Bill. I am not at all sure about conditional fees. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) that, in certain circumstances, conditional fees can be a good way to finance legal cases. However, the field of personal injuries has been singled out and will rely totally on conditional fees. I am concerned about that. Like the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, I know that the gateways to legal aid have often not been monitored adequately and that cases have been pursued that should not have been. However, one would not say that that was the case in respect of personal injuries.
The results show that some 91 per cent. of legal aid money spent on personal injuries cases has been recovered. That success is striking. The money from the legal aid budget spent on personal injuries is about £33 million. Is that the area to choose to make a point about conditional fees? I would have said that it was not.
Some hon. Members have pointed to the fact that trade unions provide excellent services in this area. I agree that, particularly in some cases that involved a huge investment of time in preparation and medical research, the trade unions have done excellent work. However, not every case has a trade union to fund it. The personal injuries cases of most concern are often deserving ones where much money needs to be invested to prove them. There are cases where it is not certain medically what the condition is or how it is caused. Such cases need huge sums to be spent to establish them. In cases that are deserving but of less than certain outcome, it is unlikely that many firms of solicitors will want to expend the large sums necessary to ground them. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) gave the example of the tobacco case, which has recently been before the courts. In that case, £2.5 million was spent on a no win, no fee basis. The solicitor who was involved said plainly, never again. There are important and deserving cases where funding will not be available.
There are other cases—not necessarily involving conditions such as emphysema and white finger—such as motoring accidents that are out of the ordinary. For example, there is the case where to establish the liability of the opponent it is necessary to bring in an accident reconstruction expert. It is necessary also to have the vehicles involved thoroughly examined and to present

medical evidence about the injuries. On first receiving a case as a lawyer, one would say, "There is nowhere near enough information." At that moment, someone would have to decide whether to take the risk of undertaking the case on a conditional fee basis. Many firms would say, "It is too risky to spend that sort of money trying to establish a case."
In such a case, the cost of insurance would be high. It is said that for the run-of-the-mill case it would be £300, but in a case where a large sum needs to be invested to establish liability, there is talk that the insurance premium might be as high as £20,000, a sum which is beyond the reach of most individuals.
We know that at present 91 per cent. of legal aid provision expended is recovered, which suggests that it is an economic process. If we proceed on a no win, no fee basis with an uplift of up to 100 per cent. and recovery from the opponent of insurance costs incurred, the overall legal cost per case will rise. As a consequence, insurance premiums could increase in personal injury cases. Overall, we could move from a system that is very efficient and does not cost much money in the scheme of things to one that, on average, costs more per case. Yet in the most deserving cases, where legal aid is most appropriate, no one will be prepared to fund the action. I have concerns about conditional fees.
I am not entirely convinced that civil legal aid should be dealt with exclusively through contracts with quality assured firms of solicitors. One of the beauties of the English system is that high street solicitors have been ready to take on a wide range of work. An individual can approach such a firm and obtain advice. Of course, some cases are extremely complicated, but there are many where it is not necessary to be an absolute expert to be able to give sensible, competent advice. Access to justice in a locality is important and there is a danger that that will be denied by the scheme before us. With the best of intentions, it will lead to much red tape and many solicitors' firms saying, "We cannot go through the process of becoming quality assured. We shall not do this work." That will deny people access to justice.
As for the criminal justice defence system, I do not share the optimism of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that there will be an improvement if there are salaried lawyers on both sides of the case who are both paid by the state. I share the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of having worked on circuit as a barrister in my early days, appearing in criminal cases. On one day I would be the prosecutor and on the next the defender. The system meant that every barrister within an area—in my case, East Anglia—knew one another. That was important because it meant that standards of behaviour were high. It meant also that, because we had the experience day in and day out of appearing as prosecutors and defenders, we were more objective.
We were not always prosecutors, and that gave us a certain objectivity. When we were defending, we were not so defence minded as not to give sensible advice to a client. I worry about a system where there will be a criminal defender and a state prosecutor, with everyone entrenched in undertaking the same sort of work all the time. Will that provide quality and competence? Will standards be maintained?
There is dissatisfaction in other countries with the idea
i that there is the poor man's lawyer: the state lawyer, as opposed to the private lawyer, the class act or the Rolls-Royce. We have always avoided that system. We have had a high level of representation overall, which has been provided to defendants, whatever their background, through the legal aid system. I hope that that will continue.
There are good things in the Bill, but it is a curate's egg. Given the things that are wrong with it, I intend to vote against it tonight.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), I am not a lawyer and I have not been involved with the legal profession. Therefore, it was with some trepidation that I decided to become involved in the debate. I am aware that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are lawyers. However, the debate has been fascinating. Niceties have been exchanged across the Chamber. Hierarchical structures become apparent as right hon. and hon. Members refer to their professional roles. I am pleased that I have the opportunity to bring some reality to the debate.
It may surprise many in the legal profession that there is less respect for them than for politicians. Those in this place who are lawyers should beware for the future.
The Bill is vital because it will bring change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said, it will bring about progress. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will not be surprised that I intend to concentrate on one aspect of it because I have seen him on numerous occasions with colleagues from many organisations who are concerned about the standards and regulation of solicitors. I have been happy to hear what has been said about the supervision of solicitors, but much more needs to be done.
I put on record my thanks to Dr. Paul Edwards, who has assisted me in providing evidence of complaints against solicitors. I have been able to highlight various concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. His organisation and others have campaigned effectively on the supervision of solicitors.
The main thrust of the Bill is to improve the standard of service that is provided by the legal profession. That is vital. It is a recurring theme that the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Minister have emphasised at a number of meetings with the profession. I do not recognise the charge that was made against my hon. Friend about not consulting the legal profession. I have been present at a number of meetings in the area of Bradford that I represent where he has met representatives of the Law Society and other representatives of the legal profession. At those meetings, he has presented robustly the need for change. The case has been well received by many of the organisations representing the legal profession, even though there are concerns about exactly what needs to be done.
The attainment and maintenance of acceptable professional standards requires an effective regulation mechanism. As has been said on both sides of the House, there is concern about the regulation of solicitors. Letters have flowed, parliamentary questions have been tabled

and generally people have made their concerns known. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was intended to replace the discredited bureau dealing with complaints against solicitors. It came into existence in September 1996, when complaints against solicitors were running at about 22,000 a year. By March 1998, the figure had increased to 35,000. By February 1999, it had reached 40,000. The OSS's recent quarterly report showed that it had failed to meet most of its targets. That has led the legal services ombudsman—who happens to be a woman—to warn that she will have to report that the OSS has failed to make the necessary progress. Her report will be released in June. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments in that regard today.
Other indicators show that all is not well with the regulation of solicitors. The Home Office has identified solicitors' involvement in legal aid immigration rackets—an issue which we discussed last month in the context of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Home Office Ministers have warned solicitors about their involvement in such activities. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has investigated the involvement of firms of solicitors in organised crime, particularly money laundering, and there are many other factual instances of substantial wrongdoing on the part of solicitors.
Self-regulation does not work, and I am heartened by the move to give stronger powers to the legal services ombudsman. However, I am slightly confused as to how that will relate to the continuing work of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. I hope that the Minister will explain in more detail how that relationship will develop in future. 1 recognise that the Law Society has advanced plans for radical change, but the OSS has been discredited. I do not attack the individuals within that office who have tried to establish an MP hotline and to provide further information. However, they have suffered from a lack of funding and support.
We must also examine the work of the legal services ombudsman. The ombudsman has ignored recommendations in the past, and matters have taken a long time to reach the ombudsman. I hope that the Minister will consider tonight and in Committee the workings of those organisations that have produced many cases where people have been failed by their solicitors.
There has been no mention of the solicitors indemnity fund—I know that that issue does not relate directly to the Bill, but it affects people's confidence in solicitors—and the failings in that area. I became involved in the case of my constituent who was selling her home in order to buy a business in Scotland. Her solicitor did the conveyancing and ultimately produced a £4,000 cheque for my constituent. She thought that that sum was far in excess of the amount to which she was entitled and wrote to the solicitor about her concerns. The solicitor replied to say that the details had been checked and that she was entitled to the £4,000. My constituent took the cheque and invested it in her new business in Scotland.
Three months later, my constituent received a letter to say that there had been a mistake and that the solicitor was owed £4,000. The solicitor took the matter to the solicitors indemnity fund, which paid him the £4,000 that he was owed and then hired him to reclaim the debt from my constituent. That cannot be right, and I know of many other horrific stories like that.
We want to raise standards in the profession and ensure that people can have confidence in the legal system. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider those matters. As I have said, there have been numerous meetings and Ministers have listened intently to the views of Dr. Edwards and others. I hope that the Minister will provide some details about how the process will work in practice. If it does not work effectively, ordinary people will not have confidence in the legal system.
I am pleased that the community legal service is to be established. I add my support to hon. Members' comments about citizens advice bureaux and law centres. The law centre in Bradford has done excellent work over the years and supported many good causes. Community legal services enable ordinary people to have confidence in solicitors. Most people think that solicitors' services will cost them a fortune and do not wish to lodge legal aid applications because they do not understand the mysterious system.
I welcome the positive attitude that the Minister and others have displayed towards the role that trade unions and trade union schemes can play in legal matters. As an ex-trade union official, I have seen members benefit over many years from the excellent work of trade union schemes. There are many excellent trade union lawyers on this side of the House who have done some tremendous work.
Time is short and many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I welcome the future development of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I declare an interest in the debate as a solicitor who has been in practice for 20 years and specialised in personal injury work—mainly for trade unions. However, I am not taking any cases now as I do not think that I can do so practically while continuing to represent my constituents properly in this place. I was also an assessor for the Law Society specialist personal injury panel, and I remain a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers executive committee. I welcome the significant reforms in the Bill, which amount to some of the biggest changes in the civil justice system for decades. Some of my former colleagues may view me as poacher and gamekeeper, but I believe that it is my job to speak not for lawyers but for my constituents and the general public.
Much of the debate so far has focused on the funding of litigation, especially personal injury cases, and I suspect has turned off many in the outside world who view it as lawyers' special pleading. As I wish to raise several other issues, I shall say very little about that. While I have some reservations about legal aid, I therefore welcome the reform of conditional fee funding—especially the requirement for unsuccessful defendants to meet the cost of success fees and insurance premiums.
Research into conditional fees was conducted recently. A survey conducted by BDO Stoy Haywood in February 1999 found that the outlook was optimistic. It revealed not just the 98 per cent. success rate of conditional fee agreements so far, but that a majority of the firms surveyed expected CFAs to be more profitable than traditional funding methods over the next three years.

Many of the fears within the profession are probably unjustified. The survey identified a fear factor among small firms that can be overcome with appropriate training and education.
I successfully took to the House of Lords a speculative funding case against the previous Government, and I welcome the Government's decision to end the uncertainty over speculative funding. However, I hope that they will go further and abolish entirely the arcane and outdated indemnity principle, which is nothing more than a restraint on fair competition in civil litigation. I believe that its end would undoubtedly lead to a freer market for legal services and better deals for lawyers' customers—especially bulk purchasers.
If we are serious about looking out for the interests of the public, not the lawyers, we must tackle one of the main causes of high expenditure on big cases: the Queen's Counsel system. While I welcome the transfer of costs of administering the system to the profession, that is only the start of reforming—and preferably abolishing—the QC system. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that more than 100 Members of Parliament have signed the early-day motion calling for the abolition of that anachronistic distinction.
The QC system operates not in the public interest but at its expense. Double manning remains rife. Although the Bar claims that the title "QC" is equivalent to a certificate of excellence, everyone knows that that is nonsense. There are good, bad and indifferent QCs, just as there are good, bad and indifferent people in every profession. If it were a proper accreditation arrangement, the silk system would have transparent assessments against objective criteria rather than the old-boy network, which, despite the best endeavours of the Lord Chancellor, maintains an inherent bias on the grounds of race, gender and age. Despite the substantial change in his or her practice facing a new QC, there is no probationary period, monitoring, appraisal, continuing education requirements or complaints procedure. Many silks draw all or most of their substantial earnings from public funds, yet there are no means of judging whether the client or taxpayer gets value for money.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that if the silk system is to continue, the public sector should recognise the volume of work it gives to QCs. I suspect that more than half of the work for silks is funded through legal aid, the Crown Prosecution Service, Government agencies and Departments, the national health service or local government. With some creative thinking, the Government could use that substantial purchasing power to negotiate more realistic fee levels. We know that QCs earn up to £600,000 before they are appointed, and their earnings increase substantially after that. While some QCs give generously of their time, many do not. I do not think it is unfair to expect a QC to do some work pro bono as a requirement of appointment. That would enable some of those who are less well off and who cannot afford the services of a QC to benefit from their expertise.
If the Bar cannot accept the challenge to modernise the QC system, I hope that the Government will accept the early-day motion and abolish the system. I believe that many litigants and practitioners would welcome such a move, judging from the substantial number of supportive letters that I have received in my campaign. Those people


favour the ending of yet another unjustified restrictive practice that is operated by lawyers for lawyers and which is not in the public interest.

Mr. Garnier: How does the hon. Gentleman know what privately funded QCs earn?

Mr. Dismore: Those figures have been published in answer to parliamentary questions that I have tabled.

Mr. Gamier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mr. Dismore: No.

Mr. Gamier: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a conversation between two hon. Members who are both on their feet at the same time. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) did not give way a second time.

Mr. Dismore: The issue relates not only to public funding. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the parliamentary questions that 1 have tabled on that issue.
The Bill provides the opportunity to consider the services provided by the central players in the legal system—the judges. The judiciary is not representative of modern society. There are almost no women in the higher echelons and no senior judges from ethnic minorities. Despite the Lord Chancellor's best efforts, judges are still predominantly drawn from the same narrow background. The judiciary is increasingly important and its powers are ever growing because of the Human Rights Act 1998, the judiciary's involvement in constitutional issues, especially after devolution, and judicial review, so the fact that judges should reflect our society also becomes more important.
The Lord Chancellor has rightly demonstrated that his policy is one of appointment on merit, and I would not for one moment suggest that judicial appointments should not be made on merit. However, I question whether the criteria against which that merit is tested and which form the basis for appointment should not also be reviewed.
The judiciary is essentially drawn from the Bar. Without change, there is little prospect of major reform of the constitution of the Bench. Why should a barrister who has spent many years in the adversarial cockpit exclusively be deemed to have the best qualifications to be an impartial judge? We should re-examine the qualifying criteria and perhaps, as Lord Borne suggested in another place, broaden the base to include chairmen of tribunals and academic lawyers. They could be monitored in the same way that part-time judges are. Let us remember that employment tribunal chairmen already often decide extremely complicated points of law and substantial compensation claims.
I agree, to some extent, with the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that the time has now come for a judicial appointments commission, like those adopted in many other common-law jurisdictions, to include both lay and lawyer members to consider recruiting, screening, investigating and evaluating judicial candidates.
Such a commission could also be responsible for maintaining a register of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests for the judiciary. That issue has been thrown into sharp focus by not only the Pinochet case but the recent revelations in the Sunday newspapers concerning potential financial conflicts of interest over directorships held by some judges. Two or three times in my professional experience, when acting for accident victims, I had doubts about the part-time judges trying the cases because I knew that the judges, in their ordinary jobs as barristers, drew their practice primarily from defendant insurance companies. My clients picked up my concerns and were concerned themselves about whether they had a fair trial.
The argument that we can expect judges to police themselves on outside interests is similar to the arguments that politicians used to advance, which have been rightly and firmly debunked throughout the remainder of public life. The judiciary's position should be no different. Those before the courts are entitled to the reassurance that the judge has no interest affecting the case. That would not only be good for the litigants but provide added protection for the judiciary against allegations of bias and would provide clear guidelines to judges in what is at present an uncertain area. It will not have escaped the notice of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that more than 100 Members have signed early-day motion 456 calling for reforms along those lines.
Finally, I turn to the problems facing people who have been bereaved or severely injured as a result of serious accidents and disasters. The public inquiry system that has developed over the years is inconsistent; it leads to considerable duplication with additional expense; it creates delays leading to sometimes contradictory outcomes, and it almost always increases the suffering and distress of relatives and victims.
As the Bill proceeds into Committee, I urge my hon. Friend to consider adding provisions to deal with at least some of the system's more glaring inadequacies; for example, to empower the chair of an inquiry, who is often a judge, to act also as coroner, to avoid the need for an inquest going over the same ground.
I was involved in the legal consequences of the King's Cross fire. The 93-day public inquiry was followed by a two-week inquest, which largely covered the same ground. Inquests were also held after the full public inquiries into the Zeebrugge, Kegworth and Piper Alpha disasters and the Clapham rail crash, adding little to the public inquiry findings but much to the distress of the relatives.lb/>
We could also shorten and simplify civil proceedings for compensation, and make them more certain, by allowing inquiry findings of fact to be binding in subsequent civil proceedings. We need to ensure that the possibility of criminal proceedings does not block the whole process. It is outrageous that the Marchioness families had to wait seven years, and undergo the most appallingly expensive and time-consuming esoteric legal wrangling, before they finally secured a public airing of the issues, only for the coroner's jury findings of unlawful killing to fall on deaf ears.
I very much support the Bill, but we could add to and improve it in Committee, to improve access to justice and the quality of justice and to reduce cost.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I, too, declare at the outset my interest as a barrister. I was involved in the litigation following the Marchioness disaster, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred.
Everyone in the Chamber and, I dare say, the country agrees that it is a cornerstone of any acceptable notion of freedom that all citizens should have equal access to the law and that, once before the law, all citizens should have equal treatment under it. Notwithstanding the unanimous opinion that equality before the law is a precondition of a civilised society, we have not achieved that precondition. The root cause of that failure is simple—legal services in this country have been seen by many who provide them as essentially a commercial commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace, rather than as an indispensable facet of our human rights.
As a junior banister, I heard another junior barrister ask yet another, "How many crates of champagne can you get in the back of your Ferrari?" I heard an eminent silk complain, "The hardest £200,000 to earn every year is the £200,000 that takes you to your million." I recite those incidents not to add to past diatribes about fat cats. Like other hon. Members, I am well aware that many practitioners operate from the high street, law centres, or general common law and criminal chambers, where financial rewards are far from excessive.
I recite those incidents for the good reason that any legal system built in significant part around the financial rewards for practitioners is bound to be prey to twin dangers. The first is that access to legal services becomes the privilege of the rich rather than the right of everyone. The second is that when the state is forced to pick up the bill of those who are unable to pay, it, too, may be faced with a cost burden that is too high for the taxpayer easily to bear.
I believe that our history demonstrates those dangers to have come to pass in our jurisprudence and jurisdiction. With prices fixed by the private market, the poor and the not so poor have been largely unable to pay the costs of litigation, and the means by which Governments, during the past 50 years, have sought to meet that gap—the legal aid system, established by Labour and seen by us for many years as a vital pillar of the welfare state—has come under huge strain.
Five decades later, with legal aid still available on only a limited basis, the costs of central Government assistance have spiralled and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said when he introduced the Bill, we pay more, but get less.
Those are realities with which the Government must deal as they seek to achieve aims that are in tension—to enhance the access to justice of our citizens, and yet simultaneously to control the public costs by which, even on a limited basis, access has previously been provided. Unsurprisingly, faced with a problem—a dilemma—of that difficulty, which calls for radical change when radical change is inherently controversial, the Government have introduced a Bill that is controversial in part. It is a series of hard choices, the results of many of which are very good—I welcome in particular the community legal service—although some cause me greater concern.
I am concerned about the lack of a Government-inspired objectives clause, and look forward with great interest to the words that I hope will be penned by my right hon. and hon. Friends in due course.
I have some sympathy with the trenchant speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) in so far as he voiced the specific concern about whether those who are vulnerable—the disabled, and especially the young—should be forced to seek conditional fee agreement funding for their personal injury cases.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will reassure me on two aspects, which have not been mentioned in detail. The first concerns the failure to extend legal aid to representation before tribunals; the second concerns the funding of civil legal aid.
All hon. Members present must be well aware that tribunals have very wide and important jurisdictions. Their decisions can have grave implications for many individuals, in fields as diverse as immigration, employment and social security. It has, therefore, been of considerable concern to many that those individuals have often been denied representation.
I thought that my Government would share that concern, because they have repeatedly said that one of the aims of the current reforms of publicly funded legal services is to prioritise social welfare law. The White Paper "Modernising Justice" says that in terms. It says that among the areas given greatest priority will be "social welfare cases" because those concern "people's basic entitlements", such as their "correct social security benefits"—to which basic entitlements we can surely add basic employment and immigration rights. What better way is there to give credible support to that asserted priority than to extend legal aid representation to cases heard by such tribunals?
Some hon. Members have mentioned the lack of research to justify some of the proposals, but the Lord Chancellor's Department has undertaken research which shows that the presence of a representative at such hearings significantly increases the applicant's chances of success. We therefore have an opportunity to use the Bill, which we call a landmark Bill—rightly so in many respects—to act on that research at least, and to meet the clear need to extend legal aid to such tribunals and such cases. I ask my hon. Friends not to close the door on that possibility, but to consider it again.
That brings me to the second matter that I wish to discuss—civil legal aid, a matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I previously understood the proposal to be that the civil legal aid budget would be capped. I was not overjoyed by that proposal, as it raised the prospect—at least to me—that some cases that should be funded might not be funded, but I was at least reassured that, under the cap, the civil legal aid budget would be ring-fenced from pressure being exerted on it by other spending commitments, and specifically from spending pressures via the criminal legal aid system.
The Government's White Paper, "Modernising Justice", said that the community legal service fund would
operate under a controlled budget—with finite resources,
whereas the criminal defence service would be a separate scheme with a different budget. The White Paper said:


Separating the two schemes in this way reflects the fact that they are responsible for providing different types of service in very different types of case; and that each scheme has its own distinct objectives and priorities.
The authors of the White Paper were right to say so. However, it now seems that the community legal service fund will not be separate from the criminal scheme at all, but will be dependent and contingent upon it.
I understand that, under the current proposals, the community legal service fund could be cut in the event of an unexpected or unplanned increase in expenditure on criminal legal services. I want to know whether I am right or wrong about that. I hope that I am wrong, but I have my doubts. In another place, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor—who, incidentally, was head of my first chambers—said:
the only money that is left for civil legal aid is what is left over out of that budget after the requirements of criminal legal aid have been met".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 918.]
Let me say to Ministers that, if that is the case, it is a cause of real concern to me and, I suspect, to many others. It is a step beyond the capping of the civil legal aid budget—which worried some of us in any event—and it will mean that the civil legal aid budget will not be ring-fenced at all. It could mean that the criminal legal aid budget could squeeze out the civil legal aid budget altogether—especially given that the criminal budget is already growing faster than the civil budget, and will grow faster still when the Human Rights Act 1998 is in force.
I do not view that prospect very kindly, and it gives rise to a number of important questions. If expenditure on criminal legal aid was unexpectedly high, might the Lord Chancellor be forced to rule that certain types of civil litigation would no longer be eligible for legal aid? Is it possible that contracts issued for civil legal work could be terminated suddenly, or will significant funds be kept in reserve to prevent those fears from being realised? I hope so.
I ask for reassurance because otherwise, through what is a good Bill—a Bill entitled the Access to Justice Bill—we shall risk achieving the opposite of what we want.

Mr. David Kidney: Before I became a Member of Parliament at the last general election, I was a solicitor in a private practice on the high street in Stafford, dealing with a fair amount of legal aid work. Not long after I came here, I first heard the cry of an hon. Member—oft repeated since—that there are too many lawyers in this place. Perhaps it is my legal background, but I am a bit suspicious of such sweeping generalisations, so I went off to find out the facts.
The three main parties in the current Parliament contain 64 lawyers. I do not know whether hon. Members think that that is too many or too few. There are 36 barristers and 28 solicitors. Since 1983, when there were 104 lawyers in Parliament, the number of both barristers and solicitors has fallen consistently at every election.

Fiona Mactaggart: Am I not right in thinking that my hon. Friend is counting only lawyers who practise professionally, and that there are some 80 legally qualified

Members, including law lecturers and the like? Are not lawyers represented on a greater scale than any other profession?

Mr. Kidney: I do not want to spend too much time discussing the composition of the House, but the figures that I have given, relating to the stated occupations of Members, come from the House of Commons Library and, in the case of earlier years, from research by Butler Election Studies. There are far more teachers and lecturers in the House—and the biggest group of all is made up of those whom some people nowadays sneeringly call professional politicians.
All that is beside the point, however. Let me finish declaring my interest. As soon as I was elected, I stopped being a solicitor in my high street practice, believing that all my attention was required for this job—a belief that experience proved to be justified. The legal paperwork relating to my retirement has not been completed—why are these lawyers so slow?—and I technically still have an interest, including part-ownership of the buildings from which my practice worked. On the letterhead, I am now described as a non-practising consultant. However, I have done all I can to distance myself.
Having said that, I want to defend lawyers from the other sweeping statement that is often made in the House: the one about fat cats. Of course there are some exceptionally well-paid lawyers. Some may be excessively well paid, but great talent attracts high pay, and in some cases, the demonstration of that talent is underpinned by the hard work that people have undertaken to get where they are. Overwhelmingly, in my view, and notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) said about the examples of lawyers who have gone wrong, the legal profession is filled with hard-working, dedicated and extraordinarily honest people, most of whom are not extremely well paid.
Figures given to me by the Law Society for 1997 show that the salary of a fully qualified lawyer in a firm deriving more than a quarter of its earnings from legal aid work is about £20,000 a year—a third less than that of an equally experienced lawyer in a firm doing no legal aid work at all. A salaried partner with 15 years' experience could expect to receive in gross pay less than the salary of a Member of the House of Commons.
In that connection, I draw attention to a letter that I received from a practising solicitor in Stoke-on-Trent. He read the comments that I made in an article in The Lawyer, in which I stated light-heartedly that many Members of Parliament do not like lawyers and think that they are extremely wealthy. He asked me to inform my colleagues in the House that the average family solicitor in the provinces works just as hard as, if not harder than, the average Member of Parliament, and probably earns considerably less.
In the brief time available, I shall make three points. The first has been covered by many other speakers—legal aid for personal injury cases. The second, which has been touched on by one or two other hon. Members, is the use of contracting for legal service provision. The third has just been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe)—the ring-fencing of funds for civil legal aid.
On legal aid for personal injury cases, there has been a substantial growth in the use of conditional fee agreements since they were first made legal in 1995.


Now they are to cover all personal injury cases except medical negligence. The Bill makes the success fee and the premium recoverable, and allows the paying party to challenge the level of the success fee.
All those are positive steps, but many hon. Members have been right to voice their concerns, and I add mine, about the danger that although the use of conditional fee agreements may extend access to justice to many people who were no longer eligible for legal aid, we may be letting people fall out at the bottom, if those who were certainly eligible to receive legal aid will now not receive it.
I draw attention to the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill, especially paragraph 74, which states that
the Lord Chancellor may direct that for personal injury cases … funding should …be possible where exceptionally high investigative or overall costs are likely to be necessary, or where issues of wider public interest are involved.
A direction can also be issued that, on the recommendation of the commission, an individual case should receive legal aid. Hon. Members are seeking an assurance from Ministers that people who, for whatever reason, cannot access a conditional fee agreement will have access to legal aid instead.
Since 1995, 60,000 policies have been issued to cover after-the-event insurance allied to conditional fee agreements. To show the willingness of the Law Society and its members to co-operate in the use of conditional fee agreements and after-the-event insurance, five out of six of those policies are written by the accident line protect scheme set up jointly by the Law Society and Abbey Legal Protection. I believe that after-the-event insurance will grow and will be reliable, but hon. Members want an assurance that, at the beginning, legal aid will be the safety net.
Secondly, on contracting for solicitors' legal services, it is right that we should insist on quality standards from those receiving public money to deliver legal services. The current Legal Aid Board standards relate to franchising, but there is no reason why they should be set in stone. The kite marking of the quality standard might change over time. More than 2,000 firms of solicitors are already franchised, and another 2,000 firms have applied to be franchised.
Contracting will give the commission control over quality and cost, but it also has other responsibilities, such as ensuring that there is a national service that is accessible to all and that people have a reasonable choice of lawyers to carry out work for them. The Government are aware that some groups have special needs, such as people in rural or sparsely populated areas and ethnic minorities. I would hate legal aid deserts to develop where there is no access to legal aid through a solicitor's firm. However, I accept that the community legal service goes wider than delivering services through firms of solicitors. Others have referred to the patchy service from law centres. Staffordshire has a population of 1 million, but it has no law centre. Happily, the citizens advice bureaux are excellent and there is good co-operation in Stafford between them and solicitors in private practice, even to the extent of solicitors giving their time freely by rota to give legal advice to those who go to the citizens advice bureaux.
I do not agree with those who have argued for ring-fencing of advocacy money. However, we should consider the possibility of the expense on criminal case support exhausting the legal services budget, leaving no money for civil cases. It is right that criminal defence should come first and that it should continue to be demand led, so we must accept the possibility of an overspend on criminal defence work that could eat into the civil work budget. It is pretty far-fetched to suggest that that could exhaust the community legal service budget.
Table 1B on page 70 of the excellent research paper produced by the House of Commons Library shows the expenditure year by year on civil and criminal legal aid. At 1997-98 prices, the total amount spent on civil legal aid in each of the six years since 1992 has exceeded the total spent on criminal legal aid in magistrates courts and Crown courts put together. Admittedly, there is a bit more expense on duty solicitor schemes, which are exclusively criminal work. Including that in the figures means that the total for civil legal aid is higher in four years out of six. It is far-fetched to suggest that the criminal budget will become so high overnight that it will eat up the civil budget. The ability to have more accurate forecasting and financial planning through contracting also reduces the risk of a surprise overspend in the criminal defence budget.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General may confirm that the Lord Chancellor's Department will maintain a contingency budget. Even the Treasury in its new public service agreements expects all Departments with their own budget to have a contingency budget. If the House sees a looming problem of the spending on criminal legal work exceeding the expected amount by more than is desirable, it will be up to us to put pressure on the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury, which holds the purse strings.
My impression from the pitifully few contributions by the Conservatives—truly this debate drives home the point that Labour is the party of law and order—is that they agree that our legal aid scheme, established in 1949, is admirable, but that, over time, it has not kept up with demands. The problems of growing expenditure have been met by a damping down of eligibility and by increasing the contributions that people have to make to their cases. Overwhelmingly, legal aid is available to the very poor only. The only other people who have access to justice are the very wealthy, who can afford to pay privately for a lawyer. The Conservatives appear to accept that something must be done and the final message that I take from their contributions is thank goodness that Labour has to do something about it rather than them, because the job is so difficult.
I recognise that the Government have a difficult job to do. They have my support as long as they listen to the concerns that have been voiced in the House and try to meet them. I have seen the consultation that has already taken place. Ministers have listened to that consultation and made changes to their plans as a result, so I have every confidence that we shall end up with an Act that will be as good for the next 50 years as the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 was for 50 years.

9 pm

Mr. Keith Darvill: I declare an interest. I am a solicitor and a partner in a firm of solicitors. I was admitted to the roll of solicitors in January 1982 and I am


a member of the Law Society. I note the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) quoted about the number of solicitors in the House. In many ways, it is a pity that not more non-solicitors and lawyers are here to take part in the debate.
I have practised in a medium in-house legal department, in a medium private general practice and, for a short time, as a self-practitioner, so I have a spread of experience in the sector. Some of the provisions of the Bill are, as the White Paper, "Modernising Justice" says, challenging to the legal profession. The profession must adapt to a modern and rapidly changing society to provide a better service and better justice for the public.
In many ways, the profession is already doing that. The question is: has it done enough and can it do more without prejudicing the fundamental right of access to justice? It can do more without prejudicing individual rights, provided that the Bill is implemented sensitively and sensibly.
I make the broad general point that access to justice needs reform. The need for change is undeniable. The legal aid system is more than 50 years old. During those 50 years, society has changed. Requirements for legal services have changed and, most relevant to the Bill, changes have been made to legal aid eligibility.
As the ever useful House of Commons Library research paper shows, spending on civil legal aid increased over the years. By 1997–98, 54 per cent. of net legal aid spending—£634 million out of £1,177 million—was on civil, certificated legal aid. However, today, such legal aid accounts for less than 10 per cent. of the number of acts of assistance that are paid for. The reduction of certificated legal aid litigants is due mainly to the previous Government's policy of reducing eligibility.
I broadly welcome the Bill. I have my reservations about some aspects of it, yet a good framework is proposed, which can be built on to establish more comprehensive provision of legal services to enhance and to expand access to justice.
To a certain extent, the provision of public legal services is like that of health services: it will never be possible to provide for all the population's needs; in fact, it has never has been possible. In terms of short, medium and long-term planning, we should all come to terms with that fact. The services are, to a large extent, provided for defence in criminal prosecutions because of the threat to the individual's freedom following conviction, but they are also desirable in social areas, which the Minister and other hon. Members have outlined. Coming to terms with that state of affairs is part of the reason for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) touched on the matter and I agree with him. When I started to practise 20 years ago, private practice in local areas cross-subsidised legal services. For many reasons, that cross-subsidisation has changed. In the early days when I practised, non-contentious work was still based on scale fees. Those fees have been abolished. The economic realities of practice are that conveyancing work, for example, which in certain practices subsidised other civil litigation work, has reduced.
Consumers benefited in that conveyancing fees were reduced, but the number of solicitors practising, and covering litigation in particular, decreased as a result. Indeed, in other areas, the market price for such services has driven down that potential. In some ways, that is sad, but that is unlikely ever to come back.
At the same time, there has been a massive expansion in civil legal aid, particularly in the divorce and matrimonial breakdown sector.
I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. I shall begin with some comments about the community legal service, which in my view is the jewel in the crown. I warmly welcome the establishment of a community legal service, which will be the best feature of the Bill provided that funding is ensured, particularly early on. It will enable an expansion in the provision of advice and assistance to those in need of legal services for social welfare-related problems.
I have worked with my local citizens advice bureau, which warmly welcomes the general concept. Voluntary services in law centres and elsewhere do an excellent job and the Bill will enhance their role as a result of the community legal service, regional planning and the block contract. It will make a real difference.
The White Paper contains some interesting statistics about citizens advice bureaux around the country. There are 700 main CABs, 1,759 outlets, 800 independent centres and 53 law centres costing a total of £150 million. They represent excellent value for money.
The Bill will also provide the opportunity to refocus legal aid spending, particularly in respect of welfare law, housing benefit and tribunals and enable more money to be targeted on the non-profit sector. In my view, the community legal service should be set up in tandem with the other reforms. The reforms are so fundamental that, as a quid pro quo as it were, the community legal service should be implemented at the same time. There may be winners and losers, but the winners will be the less well-off and those who are unable to make other provision for legal expenses.
There is also another positive angle. The community legal service could develop a legal health check. Health insurance, car insurance and holiday insurance often include legal cover. Many households do not realise that they have cover for legal expenses. It would be useful for everyone to be able to have a legal health check. Such a scheme could be developed with the profession and with the insurance industry. It would plug many of the holes in provision that hon. Members have mentioned.
I am concerned about the possible effects of the proposal on the civil budget in the absence of the CLS, particularly if the block contracting that is envisaged does not cover the whole country. We need to ensure that the Bill provides adequate cover. In some areas, there may not be many practices or sufficient cover in the voluntary sector. If there is patchy cover, some citizens may suffer as a result.
I should like to make two more points before concluding my speech. The first relates to contracting. I can see the benefits of that in ensuring best value for the taxpayer. Although I am not arguing for the profession, if there is insufficient cover there will be difficulties. Solicitors' practices will need to invest in the provision of services and if there are limited contracts they may be unable to finance the necessary investment in premises, staff and so on. Some attempt must be made in the implementation of contracts to ensure smooth delivery of services.
I should say that I am no great supporter of conditional fees. In many ways, I have been a purist on the subject. However, I have come to accept them, although I do so


with reservations. My reservations do not stem from the Bill, but from my experience in advice surgeries. Essentially because of lower eligibility levels, my constituents who come to see me in my advice surgeries support the idea of being able to use no win, no fee arrangements in pursuing their cases. There is popular demand for such arrangements. The House should therefore ensure that the Bill deals with the reservations about the arrangements that have been expressed in this debate.
I agree with the Law Society that, for conditional fee arrangements to succeed, the insurance industry will have to play its role in providing products that complement the concept. There is evidence, which I welcome, that that is starting to happen. However, the market will have to develop further in the light of experience.
I believe that the Government's proposals in the Bill will increase access to justice by making it easier for people to afford legal services, particularly with conditional fee agreements, and by providing funding for people who cannot afford to pay privately, thereby securing value for taxpayers' money and targeting available resources on the areas of greatest need and highest priority.
I therefore support the Bill and oppose the Opposition's amendment.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: At least two other Labour Members are anxious to speak in the debate, so I shall simply make some very brief comments.
I declare an interest as a member of the Bar, and welcome the Bill. It is not a cost-cutting Bill, but a Bill which will control the spending of public money. The Government should not have to apologise for the need to refocus public money, to ensure that it is properly spent and put to good use where it is sorely needed. I welcome the fact that the Government have embarked on a programme of re-orienting the legal aid system, so that public money goes where it is needed—on matters such as welfare rights, housing rights and other vital community-based rights.
Various speakers in the debate have made much of the fact that the Bill will remove legal aid for personal injury cases. I do not accept that that is a fatal flaw in the Bill. I believe that it is entirely realistic to expect conditional fee agreements to take over the role now played by legal aid. Although there is concern about that aspect of the Bill, equally, there has been concern about abuse of legal aid certificates. The sometimes very large contribution that litigants find attached to their legal aid certificates, and the issue of eligibility, are problems. There is also a problem with how to manage the legal aid system. The only solution offered by Conservative Members is further cuts in eligibility, which surely is not in the public interest.
I was impressed by the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I, too, am uneasy about some aspects of the criminal defence service. I note that, in the other place, the Lord Chancellor attempted to allay such concerns by stating that the Government's intention was simply to use that service to fill in the gaps and to introduce some flexibility, and that

the Government's intention was to use independent private practitioners to do the bulk of criminal defence work. I should like the Government to give further assurances on that matter, as important constitutional principles are at stake.
It is right that the profession should shoulder more of the burdens and risks of litigation. Money should be properly redirected and focused.
I should like to hear more about how the community legal service will be established. I should like the Minister, in his reply, to say when the CLS will be established and how it will be funded. I should also like some assurances—as would other hon. Members—about how the civil legal aid budget will be protected as a consequence of the fact that, in many respects, it will have to be secondary to the criminal legal aid system. 1 should like some form of objects clause to be entrenched in the Bill. The Bill gives considerable discretion to the Lord Chancellor, and it is right and proper that the manner in which that discretion is exercised is limited and directed in the context of an objects clause.
I am conscious that time is passing. I welcome the Bill, which surely will improve access to justice.

Ms Hazel Blears: In the few minutes that are left to me, I wish to make a few points. Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) may have said at the outset about Orwellian language, it seems to me that the Bill is a huge step forward in increasing access to justice and equality. No doubt some will remain more equal than others; the rich and powerful have always had the advantage in our legal system. The more we as a Government can do to redress the balance and to improve access to justice for some of the poorer people in our communities, the better.
The Bill is particularly relevant to people who live in communities such as mine in the inner cities. Not only are those people on low incomes but, in many cases, they are frightened of going to law. They are reluctant to enter a solicitor's office, which is a foreign world to them. They do not know the liabilities that they will incur. By creating the community legal service, we will open up the law to people who traditionally have been denied access. On that basis, I welcome the Bill.
I declare an interest as a non-practising solicitor. However, that is a minority interest this evening, because my overriding interest is that of my constituents who, at long last, will have the access to justice that has been denied them for so many years.
The Bill has been vociferously attacked, mainly by lawyers—some of whom have not liked the prospect of losing access to a fairly lucrative income stream. However, some have gone wildly over the top and have caricatured the Bill as an attack on the welfare state. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The constituents whom I represent do not want expensive court-based solutions; they want good, quick and accurate advice. They want conciliation services, mediation and representation. They would like the legal problems not to occur in the first place, and they would like not be subject to an undue balance of power which means that they find it difficult to get redress.
I do not know how much time the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has spent in inner-city advice agencies. If does spend time there, he will find that they


are run on a shoestring, and that they are full of hard-pressed staff who are struggling to cope. There are poor facilities, run-down buildings and difficult access for disabled people. The community legal service will improve all that, so that our advice agencies—at long last—are run in a reasonable manner so that people have dignity and equal access.
We are proud of the legal aid system in this country, which has helped millions of people to obtain redress. However, in recent years, eligibility has been slashed, and the number of people assisted has fallen by 100,000 in the past five years. Under successive Tory Governments, the eligibility rules were squeezed so much that the system now can hardly be described as universal; in fact, less than a quarter of people are entitled to free representation. The service is struggling, and needs fundamental and radical reform.
The Bill is not about cutting costs, but about shifting priorities. There will be a sea-change in the way in which we organise the legal service in this country. The Bill is about making the priorities housing, debt, welfare, employment and consumer issues—the crucial matters to my constituents. We are shifting the focus from money claims and negligence to matters such as whether a person has access to work, a roof over his head, personal security and freedom from crushing and crippling debt. These are the important issues to the people whom I represent, and the Bill will shift the focus of public expenditure to those areas.
The Bill will make sure that we get value for money from our public expenditure. Why should public money be used to pursue cases that are not good enough to be funded privately? If there is a good case, it should be pursued, whether privately or publicly funded. The case against conditional fee agreements is not well made.
By introducing the community legal service, the Bill will give access to justice to many of my constituents who have been denied it for years. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General takes into account the point that I made earlier—that access to justice must be local. Salford needs its own magistrates court. It is a different place from Manchester and, unfortunately, we have enough crime in Salford to fill our courts. I want to ensure that our city retains local access to justice. The magistrates are part of our community and they must be involved in the partnership to tackle crime and disorder and deliver justice locally.
Provided that Ministers listen to that plea, I welcome the Bill and urge hon. Members to vote for it. I wish it godspeed.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is a real pleasure to see love in the House. I saw the Minister looking into the eyes of the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). After a long and weary debate—a very good one, in fact—he had at long last found an admirer, and he admired her in return. If only the world were as she thinks it.
I, too, declare an interest, as I have been a barrister for 34 years. There have been many good speeches in the debate, from both Government and Opposition Members. The contribution of the hon. Member for Salford was doubly welcome to the Minister, because she will have noticed, as will everyone else who has sat through this

debate, that it was not until the ninth speaker rose that a single person other than the Minister spoke in favour of the Bill.
That ninth speaker turned out to be the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Law Officers and to the Solicitor-General, who is to wind up the debate. We were delighted to hear from him. I was PPS to the Law Officers for a long time, and I did not speak in debates in which my Minister was speaking, but it is interesting to see how the conventions change, and it is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
The problem with the Bill is not what it claims to be about but what it is likely to do in practice to our system of justice. If it were genuinely likely to increase access to justice, it would have our support but, in too many ways, as many Government and Opposition Members have said in thoughtful speeches, it does no such thing. Its title is a good example not of George Orwell's some being "more equal than others" but of his "Doublespeak".
Let us consider the Lord Chancellor's proposals for legal aid. We can give one cheer for the setting up of the Legal Services Commission and the community legal service. There is a case for an overall body to examine and co-ordinate the provision of legal services. If and when we are permitted some detail on what those two bodies are expected to do—a fair point made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill)—we shall hope to be able to give them our support.
Let us be clear that neither body will itself provide any legal services. Those will continue to be provided by barristers and solicitors; by law centres, whether funded by Government or by local authorities; by trade unions; and by the substantial network of voluntary services, including in particular the citizens advice bureaux.
Some better co-ordination and some switch of funding will have merit, but there are serious questions about the provision of practical legal services to those currently obtaining civil legal aid, and especially those who have suffered personal injury. I tried earlier to attract the attention of the hon. Member for Salford, to say that, in summary, it is likely that the removal of civil legal aid from personal injury cases will leave a wide tranche of the more difficult, but none the less deserving, cases unprovided for. Solicitors and barristers will be unwilling to take on the risks, and the unfortunate victims will often be unable to afford the legal fees insurance necessary to cover the risk of having to pay the other side's costs, and they will be left unrepresented.
I do not invite the Solicitor-General to listen only to me on this matter. Let him listen to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is known for speaking his mind and has done so on this occasion on a matter on which he knows what he is talking about. Let him listen also to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who is not a lawyer but who, as a non-professional, made a very thoughtful and knowledgeable speech expressing exactly the same concern: a concern also voiced by many others.
The Lord Chancellor's idea is that the vast majority—indeed all deserving accident victims—will easily sign up to no win, no fee agreements. However, I draw on many noble and learned speakers from the other place, including many highly respected, public names on the Labour side, who have pointed out that, in practice, it is highly likely that only those cases that are near certain winners will obtain conditional fee agreements.
What about the increased costs? The second disadvantage of the system is that the lawyers representing a successful litigant are then entitled to an uplift of as much as 100 per cent. on top of their existing fees. The likely result is that access to justice will go down and the costs of justice will go up. Nor is a significant amount likely to be saved by that policy. Under the present legal aid system, the net cost of personal injury cases to the public purse is between only about £34 million and £37 million a year, plus a certain amount of the administration costs. It has been said that the amount is about £60 million, but it is unclear whether anything like that would be saved. We would agree that the money would be worth saving if a genuinely better system could be achieved, but that £37 million represents only a small percentage of the personal injury cases that receive legal aid. The vast majority of personal injury cases succeed and the Minister knows it; when the current Lord Chancellor was in opposition, he used the figure of 91 per cent. The policy has not been properly thought through.

Ms Blears: indicated dissent.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she does not understand.
In that context, I ask the Minister to clarify a statement made by the Lord Chancellor in The House Magazine of 15 March. In his beguiling but, I fear, misleading article, he stated
civil legal aid now costs the tax payer £800 million a year in lawyers fees.
Could he please explain how that is made up? Presumably, it is not personal injury fees, as all but £34 million—or £37 million—are recovered. Does it refer to fees paid, for example, on judicial review cases? Does it include matrimonial cases or children's cases—which, as a result of the extended opportunity presented by us, constitute about 25 per cent. of those civil cases? If it does include all those matters, as I think that it does, are they no longer to receive support from legal aid? The notion that that money is there to be switched is a chimera; it is a fantasy. I should like the Minister to address that subject, because, if that money were taken away from those deserving causes, access to justice would be further reduced.
As we are dealing with standards, I interpose a small but important point in respect of the scrivener notaries, who provide a highly specialised service in the City of London. They accept that their monopoly will be abolished. I see that the Minister is puckering up his face. If he listens for a moment, he will realise that I am making not a party political point but a serious point.
The scrivener notaries provide a highly specialised service of a high standard in the City. After the abolition of their monopoly, they are concerned that the public should be aware, when they consult ordinary notaries—who have their purposes and functions—that they are not receiving the same experience and expertise that is provided by the scrivener notaries. That point will have to be dealt with in Committee, but I give notice of it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) will follow it through. It merits careful thought.
My next question seeks clarification about the community legal service. As we know, the Lord Chancellor says that that service
lies at the heart of the Bill
and will provide
a comprehensive network of legal advice points across England and Wales
to the disadvantaged. If it does so, that is laudable, but at present there is a complete absence of detailed costings or of any detailed description of how that is to be achieved. That point has been made from both sides of the House.
I have mentioned the £800 million, but it is not in place to be transferred. I fear that talk about the community legal service is another example of Government policy that is magnificent in aspiration but barren in execution. At best, it will provide a limited enhancement of services for one group of poor people at the expense of another, the future tranche of unfunded personal injury victims.

Ms Blears: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that approximately £40 million could be saved from transferring personal injury cases to conditional fee agreements. Does he accept that that money could fund something like 200 to 300 law centres, dramatically improving legal services for people in deprived communities?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It would fund a lot of law centres if matters were as easy as that. However, the £40 million comes from the margin of between 5 and 10 per cent.—9 per cent. in the Lord Chancellor's view when he was in opposition—of cases. The hon. Lady started her professional life as a solicitor and she will know that to expect to be accurate in 90 per cent. of cases is to go beyond the bounds of credibility. I can see that reflected in the eye of every lawyer in the Chamber. We cannot have a system in which the funding is as accurate as that.
Labour Members should remember that it is not only Conservatives who are critical of these ill-thought-out and flawed proposals. As I listened to the hon. Lady's speech, a recent letter to The Times came to mind. A very experienced solicitor whose name will be known to all lawyers—Mr. Benedict Birnberg—expressed the strongest reservations about this aspect of the Bill. We shall press in Committee and on Report for answers to our continually unanswered questions.
On legal fees insurance, the Government rightly recognise that their plans for no win, no fee agreements will be in tatters until effective and affordable products are available to provide legal fees insurance for those whose cases are not successful. To date, adequate products simply have not been forthcoming. The Minister may frown at that, but, in February, Abbey Legal Protection suspended 30 firms from the Law Society's accident line scheme, which it runs. The managing director said that
they are entitled to go elsewhere—but they can forget premiums of £95 to £120.
The Lord Chancellor's Department has mentioned 10 providers, but it turns out that they are mainly brokers, not companies, and the price of their products is either unclear or prohibitive. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister of State asking for more details of insurance products available and the conditional fee agreements. What I received by way of reply was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard. He said:


Insurance products to support the use of conditional fees are coming into the market regularly. I doubt that a comprehensive list of products exists or can be put together, given the vibrant and expanding nature of this market."—[Official Report, 30 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 610]
I have tabled a supplementary asking him to publish such details as are available to him. If the Solicitor-General cannot tell us—I do not expect him to—I shall look forward to the Minister's answer with great interest.
What is to be the ambit of the criminal defence service, and to what extent will the Crown Prosecution Service be able to appear in the Crown courts? That is a matter of concern to many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the hon. and learned Member for Medway the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
We are worried because we have had no details. There has been some backtracking, but little forward explanation. Lack of detail and lack of coherent quality control on these issues led to the House of Lords voting down the Government' s proposals. Before the Government seek to steamroller them through this House, can the Solicitor-General or the Minister tell us how the criminal defence service is expected to work? How much funding will be applied to it, and how many lawyers are to be employed? We have little detail; the Government are asking for a blank cheque.
The Bar Council has described the American experience of public defenders as "chilling", and there is little evidence that the introduction of such a body in Britain would be in the public interest, or save money—except to the detriment of justice.

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a point of detail, but he has much greater experience of this place than I do, and he knows that Second Readings are about principles. Will he tell us whether, in principle, he opposes the idea of there being provision to employ public defenders? What is his position in principle?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall not say, because the scheme is so vague. In a sense, the duty solicitor scheme is fairly close to a very simple form of such an arrangement. That is about as far as the Lord Chancellor has tiptoed—and I am in favour of the duty solicitor scheme, so there are some aspects of which I might be in favour.
However, I remind the Minister that he has now been in government for two years, and the Lord Chancellor has been pontificating about such subjects all that time. If the two of them cannot come up with a bit of detail after two years, they do not know their business. That is what worries the House.
If, as the Lord Chancellor has said, defendants would still be entitled to seek their own independent lawyer funded by legal aid, the system is unlikely to have much take-up. However, if it is Hobson's choice—public defender or nothing, with salaried Crown prosecutors also prosecuting cases—there must be a real risk, which has been recognised by Labour as well as by Conservative

Members, of hard-pressed state prosecutors getting together with equally hard-pressed state defenders and making plea bargains for the easy disposal of their cases.

Dr. Lynda Clark: rose—

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Just a moment.
That carries all the known risks of people being let off too lightly for serious crimes while others are bullied into pleading guilty to a less serious charge of which they are innocent, for fear of something worse if the case proceeds.

Dr. Clark: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I would, but I have only three minutes left. I apologise to the hon. and learned Lady.
As 1 have said, in the Bill the Lord Chancellor is asking for a legislative blank cheque from start to finish. We welcome the fact that in the other place it was accepted that some of his direction-giving powers should be exercised only by statutory instrument, but the fact remains that we know little of the detail of the Legal Services Commission and little of the degree to which a salaried Crown Prosecution Service will take over Crown court work. Moreover, there is almost complete vagueness on the subject of the criminal defence service.
I must mention the constitutional point, but, because of lack of time, I shall summarise it briefly. As the House knows, the background is that, until 1991, the professions of barrister and solicitor were independent and self-governing, subject only, in the case of solicitors, to the statutory framework of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, lawyers came under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor, but he had to carry with him all four of the designated judges. That was going a little too far. We accept that the ACLEC system—the system involving the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct—was a little too stultifying, and we probably would have made some modifications in that direction ourselves.
However, things are now going too far the other way. The Lord Chancellor should at least be prepared to share his power with the four senior judges. If he cannot carry at least two of them with him he should not have his way. The control of independent professions by a Government is not a model for a free society.
In summary, the House will readily understand our reasoned amendment, although the Minister of State seems not to. I am grateful for the Liberal Democrats' support for it. The Bill reduces access to justice, increases the cost of justice, reduces the rights of citizens to an effective defence and gives the Lord Chancellor excessive powers over the independent legal professions. We await the answers from the Solicitor-General, but, unless he can show a genuine willingness by the Government to listen and to think again, we shall press our points home in the Division Lobby.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) started by saying that this has been a good debate. I agree. My hon. Friends participated


fully and vigorously and made many good points. Initially, we were disappointed because it looked as though the main Opposition party would field only two Back Benchers, but the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) was provoked into contributing, which we welcomed. We also had the benefit of hearing another talking Whip.
Hon. Members of all parties acknowledged that change was necessary, so let me first try to address the puzzle that the main Opposition party is going to vote against the Bill. One reason given was the lack of consultation. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) nailed that one by mentioning the extensive consultation. The White Paper proposals resulted from 20 consultation papers and 12 research and pilot projects.
The Opposition then focused their fire on conditional fees. Our changes to the concept of conditional fees increase access to justice by making the success fee and insurance premiums in no win, no fee cases recoverable from the losing party. That means that conditional fee agreements will be suitable for non-money and small money claims and that people of moderate, and even very small, means can use them without fear of having to face the uplift out of their own pockets or out of modest damages. On the extension of conditional fees, this will release legal aid money and allow us to concentrate it on the priority needs of less-well-off people in areas where private funding does not extend and to cases that raise matters of public interest.
It is true that the Bill generally excludes legal aid from certain cases. Boundary disputes were raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We have to prioritise and choose some cases over others. Generally speaking, we think that boundary disputes do not justify public expenditure. That contrasts with the previous Government, who, when they came under spending pressure, simply tightened financial eligibility across the board, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). The result was that a raft of people were excluded from legal assistance.

Mr. Hawkins: The Solicitor-General is giving the impression that the only attacks on the Government's proposals came from Opposition Members. What about the savage criticisms of Labour supporters in another place that I and others mentioned? In this debate, Labour Members, such as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), made similarly savagely criticisms of parts of the Bill. When will the Solicitor-General recognise that he is being attacked from behind as well?

The Solicitor-General: On the whole, my hon. Friends welcome the Bill. I will come to some of the points raised. I hope that I am addressing some of their concerns.
Let me make a further point about conditional fees in relation to uplift. Under our proposals, the uplift will be recoverable from the losing party. That means that losing parties will be much more willing to challenge the level of uplift than are successful parties at present. That will

put downward pressure on uplifts. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) made the point that there is also control through taxation.

Mr. Garnier: We shall not get to uplifts unless there is insurance available to underpin conditional fee agreements to start with. Where is that coming from?

The Solicitor-General: I shall make the insurance point in relation to personal injury. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the evidence is that insurers are coming forward. We hope that insurance will further develop. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned insurance for a legal health check, and that would be welcome. Conditional fee agreements are taking off. There have been more than 50,000 claims taken with CFAs. The prophecies that they will not take off have not come to pass.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford spotted that the Bill contains a general power for the Lord Chancellor to make directions to allow some funding of personal injury. That being so, personal injury is not excluded from legal aid. The present intention is to use that power where the profile of a case may make it unsuitable for a particular arrangement, especially a case that has a high investigative or overall cost, or a wider public interest. That might cover the sort of cases raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd).
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), in quoting his solicitor constituent, made a point in favour of CFAs when they spoke about the great majority of cases being successful in terms of personal injury litigation. That is a double-edged argument. It supports rather than undermines the case for conditional fees in this area. As a footnote, the existing arrangements cost the taxpayer about £70 million a year. We argue that that money can be better spent elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), with his enormous experience in this area of litigation, has few fears, and that gives me comfort. He also referred to an empirical study in February 1999. One has only to read local newspapers and notice boards in advice surgeries, for example, to see that lawyers are advertising their services under conditional fee agreements.
Unlike the existing legal aid system, CFAs will discourage weak or trivial claims. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), with about 25 years of experience in legal aid, said that allowing people to pursue weak claims at no risk to themselves and denying their opponents their costs when they win—that has been the position under legal aid—is an abuse of the system.
Concern has been expressed about the criminal defence service by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and other hon. Friends, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway. In general, the CDS is a replacement for criminal legal aid. Its ambit is the same in that it is a mechanism for providing advice and assistance in criminal matters. However, we have


made it clear that we want a mixed system, with defendants able almost always to choose whether they want a self-employed lawyer or a salaried defender.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

The Solicitor-General: I have very limited time and there are many points to cover. I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
With a mixed system, there is no danger of a wholly state-employed defender system. What is more, salaried defenders will be subject not only to the normal ethical codes, but, under the Bill, to duties to the courts and to their clients. I doubt whether a salaried lawyer in the public service is likely to come under more pressure than a solicitor employed by a private partnership, which is seeking quite properly to maximise its profits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out, successful public defender systems operate in other jurisdictions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) asked how the salaried defender system will work. We have included that power in the Bill, but we will take things very slowly. Before we take detailed practical decisions, we will consult interested parties. We expect to start small—for example, we might use a youth court—and we will certainly pilot the arrangements. I add as a footnote that we have no intention of abolishing the duty solicitor scheme, as one Opposition Member suggested. The Bill incorporates in primary legislation the duty solicitor scheme, which currently exists simply in regulations.
As it stands, the Bill does not extend the rights of audience to lawyers employed in the Crown Prosecution Service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) explained, the Government will seek to reinstate the clause that was originally in the Bill to allow suitably qualified lawyers employed in the CPS and elsewhere to exercise full rights of audience. I understand that we will have the support of the hon. Member for Solihull in our endeavours, which I welcome.
We do not believe that employed lawyers are in some way ethically deficient by reason only of their employed status. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands pointed out, the Scottish system of advocates depute operates successfully. We value lawyers in public service. There is no statutory restriction on the exercise of rights of audience by crown prosecutors in the lower courts, so why should that bar operate at the higher level? The change is supported by the Lord Chief Justice.
The rules of conduct and qualification regulations will remain in the first instance for the legal professional bodies to determine. The Lord Chancellor is taking a new power to call in rules: not generally, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) suggested, but only in respect of rules that unduly restrict the exercise of rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. Moreover, the exercise of that power will be subject to affirmative approval by both Houses of Parliament.
I come now to the community legal service, about which many of my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and

for Salford (Ms Blears)—spoke most eloquently. Our aim is to transform and rebalance legal services. There is much unmet need: new needs are always developing.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Human Rights Act 1998 can play a significant role in rebalancing legal and justice services in this country? Will he consider giving some responsibility under clause 9 to the community legal service to take in cases under that Act?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point about human rights. We have said that public interest cases will be addressed much more seriously under this Bill than they have been hitherto.
The community legal service will provide help where there is no such assistance at present. It is a radical new approach. It will be flexible, it will work in partnership with funders and other providers of legal services, and will attempt to anticipate and respond to local needs.
We intend to open up new avenues for justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East pointed out, competent legal advice can be provided by citizens advice bureaux and other advice centres. Courts are not the only way to solve problems, and the community legal service will improve access to information and advice. We anticipate that many people are likely to choose mediation.
Several of my hon. Friends expressed concern about the balance between the community legal service and the criminal defence service. There is nothing in the Bill or in any administrative arrangement in government that requires an overspend by the CDS to be made good from the community legal service. There will not be an overall legal aid budget or cash limit.
Both programmes, however, form part of the Lord Chancellor's departmental spending limit, along with other services such as the Court Service, including magistrates courts and other bodies. The Lord Chancellor would be in the same position as any other departmental spending Minister faced with a new pressure. His Cabinet colleagues would expect him to make every effort to offset the overspend by making savings elsewhere. The scope for covering a large criminal defence service overspend is limited because most of the community legal service budget would already be committed to funding payments contracts let in earlier years, so that issue is addressed by the funding system.
I want briefly to mention ethical standards, to which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) referred. I appreciate the concerns of other Opposition Members on that issue. The Bill does much to encourage high ethical standards. It puts lawyers' duty to behave ethically on a statutory basis and includes provision for a code of conduct for lawyers employed by the new criminal defence service. The legal services consultative panel will have a duty to assist in the maintenance and development of standards in the education, training and conduct of those offering legal services.
Magistrates courts were mentioned by several hon. Members. The changes to those courts will allow local committees to work more effectively with other criminal justice agencies.
I shall briefly mention some amendments that we intend to table. I shall disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon by telling him that there will be no


amendments to abolish silk. I can say no more about that as I have a conflict of interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough raised the issue of the objectives clause. We intend to remove that clause, with the consent of the House, and are thinking of replacing it with a detailed objectives clause for the community legal service. We object to the clause because it expresses unrealistic aspirations, and it is better specifically to address the objectives of the community legal service and the criminal defence service.
I conclude by saying that this is an essential package of reforms to the justice system. No one should doubt our commitment to maintaining traditional standards for lawyers. The Bill makes it clear that lawyers will continue to owe their first duty to the interests of justice. Our search for value for money will never be made at the expense of proper quality. Those who use our legal services deserve nothing less, as is obvious in the case of defendants accused of a crime or litigants seeking to assert or defend their rights through the courts. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 338.

Division No. 143]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Dafis, Cynog


Allan, Richard
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Norman
Duncan Smith, Iain


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Nigel


Ballard, Jackie
Faber, David


Beggs, Roy
Fabricant, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fallon, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bercow, John
Flight, Howard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Blunt, Crispin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fox, Dr Liam


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Brady, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brand, Dr Peter
Gibb, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Green, Damian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grieve, Dominic


Burnett, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burns, Simon
Hammond, Philip


Butterfill, John
Harris, Dr Evan


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Harvey, Nick


(NE Fife)
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hayes, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


(Chipping Barnet)
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clappison, James
Horam John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


(Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Cormack, Sir Patrick






Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
St Aubyn, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Sanders, Adrian


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Shepherd, Richard


Kirkwood, Archy
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lansley, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Letwin, Oliver
Steen, Anthony


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Streeter, Gary


Lidington, David
Stunell, Andrew


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Swayne, Desmond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Syms, Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Townend, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Maples, John
Trend, Michael


Mates, Michael
Tyler, Paul


May, Mrs Theresa
Tyrie, Andrew


Moss, Malcolm
Walter, Robert


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles


Norman, Archie
Waterson, Nigel


Oaten, Mark
Wells, Bowen


Öpik, Lembit
Welsh, Andrew


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John



Paice, James
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paterson, Owen
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willis, Phil


Prior, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Rendel, David
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Ruffley, David
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradshaw, Ben


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burden, Richard


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Burgon, Colin


Ashton, Joe
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atherton, Ms Candy
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkins, Charlotte
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cann, Jamie


Begg, Miss Anne
Caplin, Ivor


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Casale, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Cawsey, Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Berry, Roger
Chaytor, David


Best, Harold
Clapham, Michael


Betts, Clive
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Blackman, Liz
Clark, Dr Lynda


Blears, Ms Hazel
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blizzard, Bob
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Boateng, Paul
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Borrow, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clelland, David






Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cranston, Ross
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Hopkins, Kelvin



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


(Copeland)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hutton, John


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darvill, Keith
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny


Dismore, Andrew
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drown, Ms Julia
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ennis, Jeff
Kingham, Ms Tess


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher. Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Flynn, Paul
Lepper, David


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Linton, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Galloway, George
Lock, David


Gapes, Mike
Love, Andrew


Gardiner, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
(Makerfield)


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John


Goggins, Paul
McFall, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mclsaac, Shona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Gunnell, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWilliam, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marek, Dr John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)





Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shipley, Ms Debra


Maxton, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Meale, Alan
Singh, Marsha


Merron, Gillian
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mudie, George
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Steinberg, Gerry


Norris, Dan
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Organ, Mrs Diana
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stringer, Graham


Pearson, Ian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pendry, Tom
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pickthall, Colin
(Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen


Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Powell, Sir Raymond
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Prescott, R Hon John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quinn, Lawrie
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Rapson, Syd
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford Nick
White, Brain


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid,Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW))
(Swansea W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wood, Mike


Roy, Frank
Woolas, Phil


Ruane, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, James


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wyatt, Derek


Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Sawford, Phil
Jane Kennedy and


Sedgemore, Brain
Mr.David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 335,Noes 156.

Division No. 144]
[10.13 pm

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crausby, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allen, Graham
Cummings, Jon


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
(Copeland)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Curtis—Thomas,Mrs Clarie


Atkins, Charlotte
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Darvill, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beard, Nigel
Davidson, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C


Begg, Miss Anne
Dawson, Hilton


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dismore, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drown, Ms Julia


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Paul
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Fisher, Mark


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Galloway, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cohen, Harry
Hepburn, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate


Cranston, Ross
Hood, Jimmy





Hoon, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mudie, George


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Iddon, Dr Brain
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Illsley, Eric
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brein, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brain
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Neil, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Organ, Mrs Diana


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pendry, Tom


(Wolverth'ton SW)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pollard, Kerry


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pope, Greg


Keen, Ann Brentford & Isleworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kingham, Ms Tess
Prosser, Gwyn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Quinn, Lawrie


Laxton, Bob
Radice, Giles


Lepper, David
Rammell, Bill


Leslie, Christopher
Rapson, Syd


Levitt, Tom
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lock, David
Rooker, Jeff


Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruane, Chris


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Ruddock, Joan


(Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McFall, Jon
Savidge, Malcolm


Mclsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sedgemore, Brain


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


MacShane, Denis
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Merron, Gillian
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey,Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry






Stevenson, George
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Vaz, Keith


Stinchcombe, Paul
Walley, Ms Joan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Ward, Ms Clarie


Stott, Roger
Wareing, Robert N



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
White, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wicks, Malcolm


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stuart, Ms Gisela
(Swansea W)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Winnick, David


(Dewsbury)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Woolas, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, James


Todd, Mark
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Jane Kennedy and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Allan, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Amess, David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Norman
Duncan Smith, Iain


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Nigel


Ballard, Jackie
Faber, David


Beggs, Roy
Fabricant, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fallon, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bercow, John
Flight, Howard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Blunt, Crispin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fox, Dr Liam


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Brady, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brand, Dr Peter
Gibb, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Green, Damian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grieve, Dominic


Burnett, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burns, Simon
Hammond, Philip


Butterfill, John
Harris, Dr Evan


Cash, William
Harvey, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


(Chipping Barnet)
Hawkins, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Health, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clappison, James
Heathcoat—Amory,Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hogg,Rt Hon Douglas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Horam, John


(Rushcliffe)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael



Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Collins, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dafis, Cynog
Jenkin, Bernard





Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
St Aubyn, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Sanders, Adrian


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spring, Richard


Lansley, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Letwin, Oliver
Streeter, Gary


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Stunell, Andrew


Lidington, David
Swayne, Desmond


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Syms, Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Townend, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Maples, John
Tyler, Paul


Mates, Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


May, Mrs Theresa
Walter, Robert


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Wells, Bowen


Oaten, Mark
Welsh, Andrew


Öpik,Lembit
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Paterson, Owen
Willis, Phil


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Prior, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Rendel, David
Young, Rt Hon sir George


Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Ruffley, David
Mr. Oliver Heald.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, Pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — ACCESS TO JUSTICE BILL [LORDS] MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, Pursuant to Standing Order No.52 (1)(a),

That, for the Purposes of any Act resulting from the Access to Justice Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums Payable out of such money under any other Act; and

(2) the charging on, and Payment out of, the Consolidated Fund of the salaries of District Judges (Magistrates' Courts).—[Mr. Hill.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the remission of amounts recoverable under or by virtue of Part III of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.—[Mr. Hill.]

Mr. Quentin Davies: The money resolution covers a matter which at first sight seems quite unexceptionable. In fact, it looks as though the Government have done something quite sensible and humane, but, after two years, we know the Government pretty well. We know that we have to get past the cosmetics and cut through the expensive public relations facade to get to what is really in their mind. Therefore, it is important that the House should look carefully at the proposal to see what it really means.
One striking feature of the money resolution is that it refers to a new clause in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that applies only to decisions made before 1 June this year—some three months away. If the regime set out in the new clause is to apply indefinitely, why was the provision not drafted in such a way as to make it clear that it would be part of a permanent regime? If it is to be replaced by another regime, perhaps introduced in regulations—as the Government hope to give themselves extensive regulation-making powers and to ensure that regulations are introduced under the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative resolution procedure so that it will be more difficult for Parliament to give them scrutiny—we must be particularly wary about what is in their mind.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is he telling the House that we are being asked to approve a money resolution before we know what form the Bill to which it refers will take? Is that what my hon. Friend is saying?

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. However, I hope that the House will not give the Government the Bill. It contains some extremely pernicious measures to means-test some fundamental contributory benefits. Those measures will be considered in Committee and I trust that with the benefit of the eloquence of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), we shall succeed in persuading the Committee to throw out the clauses. I hope that, if we do not succeed in doing that, the House will turn down the Bill on Third Reading; and that, if it is not turned down then, it will be turned down in another place. I have no doubt that the Bill is far from a fait accompli.
To the extent, however, that there exists a theoretical possibility that the Bill might be passed, it is very important for us to be absolutely clear about its purport; and, within that, about the potential effect of new clause 12, why the time period covered by the clause is so narrow, and the difference between the regime proposed for that particular period and the longer-term regime proposed by the Bill. [Interruption.]
I said that, at first sight, the measure seems to be sensible because the Government's intention seems to be to cease claiming back from recipients of disability-linked benefits—such as disability living allowance—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There is far too much general conversation in the House. We are debating a serious matter, and the hon. Gentleman should be listened to carefully.

Mr. Davies: I am afraid to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Labour Members are so intoxicated by their enormous majority and confident that they can get any rubbish through the House with absolutely no difficulty that Labour Members who do bother to turn up to debates in this place do not feel that it is necessary to take notice of the substance of the legislation being passed by the House. That is the very depressing current state of affairs in our country, although I trust that it will not last more than a year or two longer.
I was explaining that the Government's intention, so far as one can glean it from their motion, is to cease trying to collect from recipients of disability-related benefits—such as DLA or the income replacement benefits—benefit that has been paid in respect of a period after which a recipient's condition improved to an extent that would have made him or her ineligible for that benefit or ineligible for that benefit at the rate at which he or she had been receiving it.
Such action seems intrinsically to be sensible. It is extremely problematic to try to claw back from people, particularly disabled people, money that they had been receiving in good faith, on the grounds that, at a certain point, some event occurred or their condition improved so that they were no longer entitled to that benefit. It is even more problematic, if their condition seemed to improve between one review and another—which may be five years apart—to try to fix on an arbitrary date between those dates at which the improvement is supposed to have occurred and the benefit was no longer payable.
My first question to the Government—I think that it is the first question that one should ask in a debate on a money resolution—is, "What are the financial consequences of the proposal?" What is the total amount of benefit that is now clawed back from beneficiaries for periods before a review at which a change in their condition was identified or registered? What is the amount that the Government will be sacrificing over the period for which new clause 12 will have effect?
Secondly, of the benefit that is now being claimed back from such beneficiaries, how much has been received? Perhaps the Minister would like to tell the House how much—on an annual basis, in the past 12 months or previous 12-month period for which figures are available—was claimed in that way from beneficiaries in the category that 1 have defined, and how much was paid. Presumably, the gap has been or is being written off; we should know also that figure.
I hope that the Minister has come to the House armed with the figures, as it would be very wrong to try to ask the House to pass a money resolution without telling hon. Members the money consequences of the measure proposed— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said to the House that far too many private conversations are taking place. The House now ought to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davies: Where amounts are claimed back from beneficiaries in the categories that I have described, are not paid and are written off, how are those write-offs accounted for? Are they accounted for as fraud? It occurred to me that one possible motive for this measure might be that the Government—who have abandoned Conservative policies that were designed to reduce fraud in the benefits system and have seriously cut back the effort started by the last Conservative Administration to pursue fraud—may think that there is an easy way of cooking the books.
The Government might simply say that if they decide, under the money resolution, that the amounts that they are claiming back from people are no longer due from them because, retrospectively, the Government will leave the money legally in their hands—which is the effect of the new clause and the attached money resolution—that will mean that they can reduce by precisely that amount the outstanding estimated amount of fraud losses in the benefits system. That would have the entirely cosmetic and bogus effect of reducing current fraud losses to the Exchequer. We want to be certain before we consider passing the resolution that there is no threat of that.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend and I are members of the Committee looking into the Bill. We have spent several weeks considering the Bill, and we have only one week to go. Would not it have been easier either to consider the matter before the Committee, or to wait another 10 days until we finished considering the Bill?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. The amendment was proposed six weeks after the Committee stage began, and an explanation of that is called for. Equally, the money resolution was sprung on the House after Easter. Once again, it looks as though there has been an element of disorganisation and indecision in the way in which the Labour Administration have handled the Bill.
If the rules of relevance were not particularly strict on money resolutions, I would have liked to enlarge on the Bill, which is particularly pernicious. It is frightening to think that measures of such enormous importance to vulnerable people—extracting some £800 million in a full year from the disabled, for example, against their present entitlement—could be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now starting to do what he said he was not going to do. I would he most grateful if he would stick to his original intention.

Mr. Davies: I was going to link my remarks to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) by saying that it is frightening that such a measure could be proposed by a Government who are capable of such an administrative shambles, as they evidently are.
We must also consider the reviews that are referred to in the new clause, on the outcome of which the financial consequences of the clause will depend.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Rowntree Foundation produced a

report on the amount of money that was not being claimed because people were unaware of the benefits to which they were entitled. Does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that the new clause will confuse that issue, rather than clarify it, as far as those people are concerned?

Mr. Davies: One of the aspects of the Labour party's rhetoric in opposition during the last Parliament was that it was going to make sure that there was a better take-up of benefits by those who were entitled to them. Labour also had the temerity—I say "temerity" in the light of the fact that the Labour party has done nothing about it since coming to power—to say that it would be stricter on fraud. It is clear that Labour has run down the anti-fraud effort since it came to power. Nothing at all has been done to fulfil the legitimate expectations felt by so many people that there would be more effective targeting of benefits to those who are entitled to them.
The whole of the provision is premised on the reviews. The Secretary of State said:
The review process will involve gathering information by postal inquiry and home visits".—[Official Report, 28 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 321.]
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the reviews referred to in new clause 12 are of that kind.
Those reviews sound exactly like the reviews in the benefit integrity project, which the Government have denounced as unsuccessful. Indeed, the Social Security Committee also criticised them severely. We do not know whether the failure of the benefit integrity project resulted from its being misconceived by the previous Conservative Administration or from its being misapplied by the new Labour Administration, or whether it was sensible for that Administration to launch it if they had such serious doubts about it.
I do not suppose that I can pursue those interesting questions now, but I hope that we can pursue them on another occasion. On the Government's own testimony, such reviews have not worked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The money resolution is very tightly drawn and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stick to it fairly strictly.

Mr. Davies: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we need to know precisely what the financial consequences of new clause 12 are anticipated to be, and that will depend entirely on the outcome of the reviews, so we must be sure about the integrity and effectiveness of the review process. The reviews that the Government have in mind are exactly the kind of reviews carried out at home by administrative personnel from the Benefits Agency, or by postal inquiry, that Ministers have denounced as utterly ineffective in the benefit integrity project.
That is not encouraging, but if the reviews are to be of a different kind, we had better know what the Government have in mind. Do they perhaps have in mind a very different kind of review as described in the Bill: the personal capability assessment in clause 50? Under clause 50(6), as I recall, the assessments can be repeated as often as the Secretary of State requires.
The assessments have been sold by the Government as something akin to the all work test carried out by medical personnel: an entirely different approach to review. Which kind of review is foreseen in the new clause: the existing


benefit integrity project review carried out by administrative personnel; the personal capability assessment carried out by medical personnel; or a third kind of review?
Is there a danger that disabled people will be subject to several different types of review under the different systems, or will certain people on certain benefits be subject to one type of review and others to another? That should not be the case, because new clause 12 makes it clear that all disability beneficiaries will be subject to review, so we had better know what the meaning of review is in that context. But how does that relate to personal capability assessments?
New clause 12, to which the money resolution relates, refers specifically to disability living allowance, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance, but what about disability working allowance, industrial injuries disability benefit or the disability premiums in income support? What happens if someone still owes money from a previous review? Will there be an attempt to reclaim money or will people be told that, with effect from February of this year, they do not have to repay any money? Will DLA claims be dealt with on the same terms and subject to the same regime as beneficiaries of incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance? Those questions must be answered.
We need to know what the financial effects are. We do not merely want the final figure; it is important to know how it is made up. What are the total claims outstanding? How many of those have already been met by people paying in money that is due? How much is left and what is the difference? What amount would have to be written off if it were not for the provision that tells people that, retrospectively, they no longer have that liability? To what extent will the regime be continued after 1 June—the relevant date? What regime is foreseen after that date? What is the nature of the reviews that are referred to? How robust will they be? On the Government's own testimony, if they are of the benefit integrity project type, they will presumably not be very effective. If it is some other type of review, how will it differ from those reviews? What is the danger of the duplication of reviews, given that, at the same time, the Government are making provisions in the Bill for the personal capability assessment?
I have repeated those questions deliberately, because we know that the Government like to avoid questions. They avoid the detail and think that they can get away with leaving the House with a glossy public relations story. They will not be able to get away with that—not tonight or on any other occasion, if we have anything to do with it.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am not a member of the Standing Committee that is considering the Bill; nor am I a member of the Select Committee on Social Security. I am merely an average Back Bencher, who takes a bit of an interest in money resolutions. This money resolution takes the biscuit for a number of reasons. I shall follow the excellent questioning of the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) with one or two modest questions.
Why did the Minister not seek to catch your eye at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain why we are debating a money resolution while the Bill is in Committee? Normally, money resolutions come to the House when a Bill has completed at least a significant part of its progress, so that the Government can tell the House what is in the resolution—how much money they are asking for, their estimate of the financial impact, and so on. That is the point of the exercise: the Government ask the House to authorise the money effects of a Bill.
However, my lay reading of the process suggests that apparently this major Bill is in Standing Committee, still undergoing changes as it goes along. We have become used to the Labour Government amending their legislation on the trot, in an ill-considered way, and another example of that is now before us. The Government not only have the gall to bring a money resolution to the House during that process, but insult those of us who are in the Chamber and interested in the money resolution by failing to explain what it is about. I can only assume that they thought, in their usual arrogant way, that the House would nod through this money resolution without showing much interest in it. It will take us a while, but eventually we shall get through to the Government the fact that the House has a considerable interest in money resolutions, and that a number of Members want some answers before we will agree to the money resolution. Whether I divide the House on the resolution will depend on the quality and detail of the answers that we receive from the Minister, although I am beginning to wonder whether he does not merely complacently assume that we shall nod the resolution through without his explaining what it is about. That is the background to the process in which we are involved.
We have had no indication of why the money resolution is before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, knowledgeable as ever, seemed to assume that he knew that it was about some new clause 12. I do not see how he draws that conclusion. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, and I rarely do. However, I read the resolution literally, and it contains the words:
for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill".
The resolution is an open-ended, non-specific commitment which would give carte blanche to expenditure resulting from any changes to a Bill that is still in Standing Committee.
My hon. Friend may think that the resolution is about some new clause 12. I do not see how that can be so. My reading is that the resolution is entirely non-specific. If the House were to pass it—and the more I hear myself speak, the more I believe that we would be rash to do so—we would have a completely open-ended commitment. My logic leads me to conclude that it might be unreasonable to expect the Minister to give us the figures asked for by my hon. Friend because the commitment is so open ended.
The Government will be in something of a bind because of the wording of their resolution, which goes on, insolently, to say:
it is expedient to authorise".


I bet it is. Of course it is expedient to authorise expenditure if one is dealing with something of which one knows no details at all. The resolution is pretty impertinent stuff and we must know much more about it before we will be convinced.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a consequential one? Edmund Burke talked about the consequences of one Bill following from another. The point is? that the consequences of the resolution fall on a Bill that is still in Committee. Is it not almost unconstitutional, as Edmund Burke might have said, to discuss such a resolution tonight?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend tempts me, as ever, but I have learned during my few years in the House to study the facial expression of the person occupying the Chair. Although your expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is close to inscrutability, I detect that if I were to engage in a dialogue with my hon. Friend about the views of Edmund Burke on the process in which we are engaged, you might take a dim view. Perhaps on another occasion my hon. Friend and I may discuss Burke. It might be a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate should my hon. Friend be able to win one.
There is a serious point to discuss.

Mr. Fabricant: Mine was a serious point.

Mr. Forth: I know that it was, but I shall make a different serious point which I hope will pass the scrutiny of the Chair.
How can we debate a money resolution while the Committee stage of a Bill continues? We do not know what the final form of the Bill will be. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said, the Government have already tabled amendments to their own Bill, it is in the process of being altered as we speak. A money resolution is before us that relates to a Bill not yet in its final form. We cannot know what commitment we are being asked to underwrite.
I do not know how the Minister will get out of that bind, and I shall sit down to let my hon. Friends speak and to allow the Minister time to explain, if he possibly can, what the resolution means and what money commitment the Government are asking for. If he can answer my and my hon. Friends' pertinent questions, we may be persuaded, but I have my doubts.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): This is a straightforward matter that puts right a serious flaw in the legislation that we inherited from the previous Government. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, the money resolution relates to a proposed new clause in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. It provides that overpayments of benefit will not be recoverable from certain claimants where otherwise they would be.
The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), announced in response to a parliamentary question on 26 February that the Government would introduce that new clause. The reason was that monitoring by the chief adjudication officer of reviews of entitlement to disability

living allowance under the benefit integrity project, so disastrously designed by the previous Government, brought to our attention the fact that the rules on the recoverability of overpayments worked unfairly.
The effect of the present law is that once it has been established that somebody is no longer entitled to the rate of benefit in payment, the Benefits Agency must also establish the date on which that change took effect. An overpayment has thus occurred, which may be recoverable. As a result, cases have been identified in which, although the current award of benefit is no longer correct and overpayments averaging £5,000 per person have occurred, it is not reasonable to expect that the claimant should have known that he or she should have reported something to the Benefits Agency.
For example, let us take the case of Angela. She has been a wheelchair user since being injured in a road accident in 1993. She has adapted well to her condition, and her care needs have significantly reduced—partly because of rehabilitation and partly because of a series of adaptations to her home carried out over time, such as the widening of doors and the addition of ramps, a stair lift and a fully redesigned bathroom. Some of those were funded by her disability living allowance.
Angela did not report any change in the level of help that she needed with personal care, and a recoverable overpayment arose as a result. Her current level of needs came to light during benefit integrity inquiries, but it was difficult to determine exactly when the change in her entitlement took place. It probably happened gradually.
Neither Angela nor her family and friends can understand the basis of the overpayment decision, as she is still severely disabled. A reduction in her benefit is bad enough, but to present her with a bill for £5,000 or more for overpaid benefit in the past, when it is not reasonable to expect her to know that she should have notified the Benefits Agency, is simply not fair.
Another case is that of Brian, who in 1992 was awarded DLA at the highest level for life because of a serious heart condition. In 1997, he underwent a successful heart transplant operation. He is required to adhere to a strict drug regime and his condition is closely monitored, but he has been able to manage his own needs, which are considerably reduced, since early 1998. His DLA entitlement is significantly reduced as a result.
Brian still rightly regards himself as seriously disabled, and, again, it is difficult for him to recognise that he ought to have reported his improvement to the Benefits Agency. Not only would he have his benefit reduced or even removed, but the present law could require him to pay back all the benefit paid above the level of his new entitlement since the beginning of last year.

Mr. Quentin Davies: If the Minister is so proud of the measure that he wants to read out a prepared presentation on it, I am surprised that he did not attempt to catch your eye in the first place, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, as he did not so, and he is now responding to a debate, would he be good enough to answer the precise questions that I asked him? All that he has done so far is to is to confirm to the House that my understanding of the purport of his money resolution and his new clause is correct.

Mr. Timms: What the House will want the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to say is whether they


wish to vote against the money resolution and continue to recover large sums from some of the most disadvantaged people in our society. People outside the House will watch with great interest how Opposition Members vote at the end of the debate.
Angela and Brian, and many more like them, will benefit greatly from the change. They will no longer face the large bills for overpayment of benefit that the application of the present law would require.

Mrs. Theresa May: If I read new clause 12 correctly, the people whose circumstances the Minister has described will not be affected, because the change relates only to decisions taken between 26 February and 1 June 1999. Will he address the precise point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)? He is setting out what many people would consider a reasonable proposal for a change, but it applies only to decisions made between 26 February and 1 June. What about decisions taken after 1 June?

Mr. Timms: If the hon. Lady will be patient, I shall come to those points.
As a result of the problems, on 25 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued an accounting officer direction to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to ensure that no action to recover overpayments would be taken in cases involving a disability-related review of benefit entitlement. The new clause will mean that that direction is no longer required. The law will be brought into line with what most people think that it should be.
There is a retrospective element to this much needed change, which is why we need primary legislation in the new clause. From 1 June, it will be possible to resolve this through regulation. That is what we will do. The action involves writing off overpayments that claimants would in some cases have been required to repay and which could have totalled £15 million. It is right for Parliament to have the opportunity to debate this action and give it proper approval. I hope and anticipate that across the House, hon. Members will agree that this is the right thing to do.
I emphasise that the new inquiry arrangements replace the benefit integrity project which, with its disastrous design flaws, was introduced by the previous Government. We are scrapping that. The new arrangements will keep a close eye on changes in circumstances to spot unreported changes as soon as possible. The new clause does not affect recovery of overpayments in any case where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence or agreed to pay a penalty as an alternative to prosecution in connection with overpayment of benefit, or where deliberate fraud has been established.
The comments of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on fraud were utterly wrong. The previous Government's practice was to make heroic statements about fraud and do nothing. Fraud went through the roof

under their stewardship. For the first time, we have a credible strategy for tackling it that we are putting into effect. Fraud will be reduced as a result.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Timms: No.

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose—

Mr. Timms: The House has a simple choice tonight. Does it wish to recover unfairly very large sums of money from some of the most disabled people in our society? The figure involved is £15 million. The choice is clear. I urge the House to support the money resolution.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great pity that the Minister chose not to make that speech at the beginning of the debate. He outlined the reasons why the Government think that new clause 12 is satisfactory. It may well be, but, if Parliament is to mean anything, it is incumbent on the Government to come here, explain matters, introduce a clause, allow the Opposition spokesman to question the Government and allow Back Benchers to take part in the debate, and on the Minister to reply to points raised by the Opposition spokesman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) asked a series of questions, including an interesting one about how much money will be saved by the measure. I suspect that the Minister gave no answer because I doubt whether the Benefits Agency has been pursuing people in the way that he described. It is probable that little money is being saved. If I am wrong, as I may well be because I am not in receipt of the briefing available to him, he can put me right, as he could have put my hon. Friend right.
This is clearly an important matter. We are dealing with people who are disadvantaged and disabled, yet the Government apparently hoped that the resolution would go through on the nod late at night, without debate. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford to raise the matter on behalf of Parliament. Why are the Government introducing new clause 12 in this way in the middle of the Committee proceedings? If this is such an important issue, why were they not better in control of the administrative machine to ensure that the proposal was in the Bill presented to the Committee at the start of our proceedings?
The debate is necessary because on this issue the Government are in a shambles. The way in which they are conducting themselves tonight is an object lesson on how they live from day to day and from hand to mouth while important issues are rushed through the House. Thank God that we have a vigorous Opposition Front-Bench team who are prepared to put the Government on the spot.

Mr. Eric Pickles: I shall make a brief intervention to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify the £15 million figure. Is it the amount that is outstanding, to be recovered or to be forgiven under the Government's proposals? Surely these are reasonable questions and surely it is reasonable for the Minister to


provide clarification. If the Minister wants to ensure that he receives all-party support for the Government's proposals, he must persuade us that they are worthy of support. If he wishes to do so, I shall be happy to give way. It is obvious that he does not wish to answer my questions.
It seems that the £15 million is a red herring. We have a right to know what the Government propose. Is the sum of £15 million outstanding, to be recovered or to be written off? This is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I say to Members on the Opposition Front Bench that I must have good order. Only one Member can address the House at any one time.

Mr. Pickles: I do not understand why the Minister is refusing to answer simple questions. I shall be happy to give way to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman come to the end of his contribution? If he has, I call the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)

Mrs. Theresa May: I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that the Minister is refusing to answer his pertinent questions because the Government do not know what the implications of new clause 12 will be. The new clause covers a period when some of the decisions to which it refers will have been taken under the benefit integrity project, while others will have been taken under the new review proposals that the Government have announced to replace the benefit integrity project, which came into effect on 1 April. Details of the proposals have not yet properly been revealed to the House.
The Minister has failed to answer the question put to him during the most recent Social Security Question Time about the number of reviews that are likely to take place under the new system. The letter that the Minister says that the Secretary of State sent to hon. Members suggests that there will be more reviews in future, which means that the money implications could be greater in future.
I pick the Minister up on his response, or lack of response, to my earlier intervention about the period to which new clause 12 pertains, which is the limited period between 26 February and 1 June. The Minister said that the only reason for the new clause was that the primary legislation related to retrospective legislation as opposed to future legislation. The Minister made a case for the Government's proposals to change the way in which the overpayment is calculated. If he believes that they set out the way in which disabled people's overpayments should be calculated in future—from the date of the review and not from the date when their conditions change—surely he should pledge to the House now that he will introduce such a measure post 1 June 1999, rather than a measure for a limited period.
The occupants of the Government Front Bench are nodding, but the Minister said that the Government's proposals would be introduced by regulation. What comfort can disabled people take from this Government, who operated the benefit integrity project for two years, when case after case was being brought to them by

hon. Members on both sides of the House and from another place about the hardship that was being introduced to people's lives as a result of their operation of it? What comfort can disabled people take from a wave of the Minister's hand to the effect that he will introduce regulations? If he believes in what he has said tonight, he should be introducing the proposed changes under primary legislation and not leaving them to regulations down the line, which could very well vary from what he is proposing tonight.

Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to Opposition Members' cynical outrage. I have already provided the assurance that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) seeks. As I said, the regulations will be introduced to change the position from 1 June.
The £15 million is benefit that was paid to disabled people prior to their benefit integrity project reassessments and which, under existing law, should be recovered from them. The question is: does the House wish to go ahead and recover that £15 million? [Interruption.] I put it to the House that it would be unfair to disabled people and utterly wrong if Opposition Members were to insist on recovering £15 million from large numbers of disabled people who received that benefit—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said that only one contribution can be made at any given time.

Mr. Timms: Disabled people received that benefit in good faith and had no reason to believe that they should have reported to the Benefits Agency a change in their circumstances. Are Opposition Members insisting that the Benefits Agency should demand large sums of money—£5,000 per head on average and substantially more in several cases—from people who depend on benefit for their existence? We believe that that would be utterly unfair and wrong. We are introducing these measures and the new clause to change the position, and to make the law fair for disabled people. We are doing that across the system, and that is what we are doing with the new clause and the money resolution. We need a money resolution—
It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b) (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with Bills).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the remission of amounts recoverable under or by virtue of Part III of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Ordered,
That the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the draft Code of Practice on School Admissions be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — Bahamas (Murder of British Citizens)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a tragic matter concerning the circumstances and subsequent investigation of the death of a British citizen, Carole Leach, in the Bahamas nearly two years ago. It is not a matter of general application: it has no great policy ramifications and I hope that it will not affect our generally good relationship with the Bahamas. Indeed, the matter affects few people directly: just one family, the friends of Carole Leach and particularly her mother, Mrs. Eve Gamson, who lives in Coleford in Somerset and is therefore my constituent. I have been in contact with her for the past 18 months.
I say from the outset that I do not criticise the performance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on behalf of Mrs. Gamson and in responding to the points that I have put to it. On the contrary, the British High Commissioner in Nassau, Mr. Peter Young, has been extraordinarily helpful. Mrs. Gamson and I are grateful for his assistance and for that of his staff in the high commission. That co-operation has extended to the Caribbean desk in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, who has responsibility for this area.
I also thank the Bahamian High Commissioner, His Excellency Mr. Arthur Foulkes, for his significant efforts on our behalf. He has been consistently courteous and helpful to the extent of his powers in London in expediting requests to the Bahamian Government and in assisting Mrs. Gamson and me when we have contacted him.
Mrs. Gamson has, however, faced delay, uncertainty, confusion, lack of communication, considerable personal anguish and expense and continuing disappointment since the tragic loss of her daughter in August 1997, nearly two years ago.
It may be helpful to the House if I set out the sequence of events. Carole was a teacher, aged 37. She lived and worked in Rock Sound, in Eleuthera in the Bahamas. She was a popular member of the local community. She taught at the Green Castle all-age school. By all accounts, she loved the island and its people and had many friends in the local community. If there was one small upset in her life at that time, it was that for some months in 1997, she was troubled by what she termed strange phone calls. There was heavy breathing, the telephone receiver was replaced and then there was a repeat call. She was sufficiently concerned by that to tell her mother in England about it when she talked to her, as she regularly did, and to say that it was causing her some worry.
On 22 August 1997, Mrs. Gamson, who had recently seen her daughter in America, tried to phone her in the Bahamas but got through only to her answering machine. The following day, she received a call from Mr. Michael Saunders, a friend of the family, to tell her that her daughter had been found dead. Carole Leach had been battered around the head by a blunt instrument. It is believed that it may have been the blunt end of a machete. Her body was clothed only in a blood-soaked tee-shirt. She had been brutally murdered.
What followed was, I fear, not a good advertisement for the investigative procedures of the Royal Bahamian police or for the sensitivity or efficiency of the coroner's court in the Bahamas. The initial investigation left much to be desired. It would be inappropriate for me to list here the apparent deficiencies of the police findings, but many of the investigations that we might expect to have been carried out at the time—they would have been part of standard police procedures in this country and many others—were conducted unsatisfactorily, or not at all.
For example, simple checks might have been carried out on the circumstances in which the body was found and to find out what Carole's movements had been on the day and why her car door was open. She kept a spare set of keys in the car port or the car. Who knew that? Who might have been a suspect? What alibis were available? Was her car seen at the house during the day? None of those questions was answered by the police investigation at the time.
The autopsy report was equally unhelpful. First, it was not made available to Mrs. Gamson for some considerable time. Indeed, we had a prolonged correspondence to try to secure the autopsy results. When that report arrived, Mrs. Gamson immediately realised that it was littered with obvious errors and that there were clear doubts about its accuracy. The time of death was not clearly identified. Carole's height was stated as 5 ft 4.5 in; she was 5 ft 2 in tall. Her hair was stated as being light brown; she had dark brown hair. No surgical scars were noted; Carole had a scar on her left ring finger and the removal of a lump from her breast had left a scar. The samples that were taken were not satisfactory for the purposes of forensic investigation.
There were doubts about the investigation and the autopsy.
Mrs. Gamson was then in the difficult position of being obliged to plead for information about the inquest and the coroner's procedure, but found that her way was blocked several times. She was so alarmed by the lack of progress in the police investigation that friends provided her with $10,000, which was available as a reward. That was later doubled by the Royal Bahamian police. Mrs. Gamson herself produced posters, which were placed around the vicinity of the community to publicise that reward. As far as can be determined, neither the local police nor the authorities attempted to offer that reward and publicise its existence.
The coroner's inquest was delayed for many months. It was eventually convened on 25 May. Mrs. Gamson, who is a pensioner living in my constituency, found the money to travel to the Bahamas to attend the inquest. The inquest convened on 25 May. It was adjourned on 28 May until 9 June. On 9 June, Mrs. Gamson returned for the reconvened inquest, only to see it again adjourned on 12 June until 25 June. She was due to return for a further visit to the Bahamas on 25 June, but the previous day she was informed by the British high commission that the inquest had been adjourned indefinitely.
In August 1998, there were new and tragic developments. On Paradise island in the Bahamas, two young women were found murdered—a Briton, Joanne Clarke, and an American, Lori Fogleman. They were tourists, found murdered on the beach. This time, there was a more immediate response. The Bahamian

authorities immediately offered a reward of $100,000. The Prime Minister of the Bahamas became personally involved.
Mrs. Gamson noted how the response to those later murders differed from the response to the murder of her daughter. She had to ask herself why there was such a difference in the speed of response, in the appropriate response by the Prime Minister, and in the amount offered as a reward. She suspected that it had something to do with the £300 million development of tourism facilities on Paradise island, and the effect that that potentially had on the Bahamian tourism industry—a fact that is, of course, strenuously denied by the Bahamian Government and by the high commissioner.
However, those further murders led to a temporary improvement in the circumstances. The Prime Minister's involvement brought in police experts from Scotland Yard and from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I understand that, at the specific request of the British high commissioner, their remit included the previous murders of British subjects in the Bahamas, including that of Carole Leach. Detective Superintendent Morris was sent from Scotland Yard to conduct investigations and to support the Royal Bahamian police. He did an excellent job, carrying out investigations. He kept very much in touch with Mrs. Gamson, whom he interviewed, and has kept in touch with her since. I am grateful to him for that.
In December 1998, the inquest was resumed. Mrs. Gamson was told, at very short notice, by the Bahamian high commission in London; indeed, her ticket to the Bahamas was paid for by the Bahamian Government, so there was a substantial change in attitude, and a very supportive position at that time. That inquest concluded with the arrest of a Mr. Dallas Murray, a Canadian citizen domiciled in the Bahamas, and it concluded with the view that a suspect had been arrested. Subsequently, a further suspect, who was considered to be an accomplice, a Mr. Sydney Pyfrom—a local resident, a Bahamian—was arrested and also held in custody.
At that point, Mrs. Gamson thought that at last her efforts to maintain pressure on the authorities in the Bahamas had borne fruit, and that she was to have an adequate answer to the mystery of her daughter's death. Sadly, a few weeks ago, both men were released without charge; she was advised that that was the result of a lack of evidence.
The question that then arises is, what happens now? What support can be given to Mrs. Gamson in her quest for justice following her daughter's death? She feels very much that she is back to square one—that, after nearly two years, she is no nearer to finding out what happened to her daughter and who is responsible for her death. What more can the British high commission do to put pressure on the authorities in the Bahamas to maintain the speed and effectiveness of their investigation? What more can be done to persuade them to look at the findings of previous investigations, and to explore areas to which they may not have devoted adequate attention?
What has happened to suspects who have now been released? Do they still have their passports? Under Bahamian law, is there any possibility that their passports have been surrendered? If not, is it possible that they have left the Bahamas and, in the event of their remaining suspects and if further evidence comes to light, they will escape being brought to court? What further support can


the British police provide? Can Detective Superintendent Morris be brought back into the investigations, and, if so, what role could he play? Have Ministers any ways, either via the Commonwealth or via bilateral links with the Bahamian Government—or by other means—of putting pressure on the authorities to provide some of the answers?
Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the whole sad catalogue of events, as far as Mrs. Gamson is concerned, is this. Although, as I have said, Mrs. Gamson has been well served by the British consular authorities and the Bahamian high commissioner here in London, at no time has she been contacted directly by the Royal Bahamian police, and at no time has the coroner had adequate contact with her. She has undertaken repeated and very expensive journeys to the Bahamas simply to try to maintain some sort of progress—trips that she can ill afford in her present circumstances. Surely the least that she should be able to expect from a friendly Government is a constructive relationship with the police authorities that are carrying out the investigation.
My principal reason for calling the debate is to highlight the circumstances of this episode, and to ensure that Mrs. Gamson is aware that some people are concerned about the fate of her daughter and want to ensure that the perpetrators of this ghastly crime are brought to justice. Those people want to ensure that the case is kept in the public eye, and that whatever action we can take as Members of Parliament, Ministers or officials in the responsible Departments is taken to maintain the pressure and the progress. The fear that Mrs. Gamson and I share is that the release of the suspects in the early part of this year represents an end to the investigation, rather than a renewed investigation, of the circumstances of Carole's death. That, I think, would be unacceptable to her, to her immediate family and to her friends, and I think it should be unacceptable to Members of Parliament.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), not only for bringing the matter to our attention but for saying what he has said.
We must all agree that even the contemplation of the death of a child is momentous for any parent, and that to experience that is traumatic. If the death is a result of murder—and murder of this kind, such a long way away—that adds to the agony. The House shares the strong sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his support for his constituent—not as a constituent, but as a mother bereaved. I place on record my respect for his strong commitment to Mrs. Gamson's concerns.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to the work of the Foreign Office and especially of the high commissioner in the Bahamas. The hon. Gentleman was gracious but accurate in his comments about the high commissioner of the Bahamas in Britain, Mr. Foulkes, whom I know well and for whom I have considerable respect.
Let me put matters in context. Since the independence of the Bahamas in 1973, there have been 10 murders of British citizens on the islands. I shall not chronicle details

of them all, except to say that, of those 10 murders, seven were successfully investigated, leading to the prosecution and conviction of those responsible. I shall of course comment on the case of Carole Leach. As the hon. Gentleman compared that with the case of Joanne Clarke, it may be helpful if I say something about that murder and the investigation of it.
As the House has heard, Carole Leach, who had been resident in the Bahamas for six years, was murdered at her home on 22 August 1997. She died from a blow to the head. The CID of the Royal Bahamian police force responded immediately. A reward of US$10,000 for information was offered by a friend of the family. That sum was matched by a further $10,000 reward by the local police. Our high commissioner began to push the commissioner of police for an inquest as early as October 1997, as he clearly thought that the process should be speeded up.
The inquest began only on 3 February 1998, six months after the murder. As the hon. Gentleman told the House, the inquest was adjourned several times before its completion in December 1998. I must place on record my enormous sympathy with Mrs. Gamson over the length of time taken by the coroner to complete the inquest, which we are led to believe was delayed pending the results of forensic tests that were conducted in Miami.
That raises the question of why the tests took so long to complete. The length of time is not acceptable, and I can offer Mrs. Gamson no words that would make her feel that that was anything other than a remarkably extended period, which did nothing to assuage her doubts and concerns about the intent of the authorities to bring matters to a conclusion.
On completion of the inquest, two men were charged with the murder. They were subsequently released when the ruling of the coroner was quashed by the Supreme Court judge. I am told that the Bahamian police are continuing their investigations of the two men, but I cannot give the House any information with respect to their passports or their ability to leave the Bahamas, where their prosecution could successfully take place.
On the first anniversary of Carole Leach's murder, the bodies of Joanne Clarke and Lori Fogelman were found in bushes on the edge of a beach on Paradise island. Those deaths received extensive publicity in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Bahamian Prime Minister held a press conference and the police put up a reward of $100,000 for information about the killer. For the first time—I stress this to the House—the Bahamian authorities asked for assistance from New Scotland Yard and the FBI.
One of the victims of the second murders was an American citizen. A specialist forensic pathologist was flown out from the United States to assist with the autopsies. Detective Superintendent Brian Morris from New Scotland Yard flew out to assist the Bahamian police with their investigations. In September 1998, less than one month after the bodies were found, Tennel McIntosh, a Bahamian, was arrested and charged with the murder of the two women. He has since been committed for trial at the supreme court. I understand that the case is likely to be heard in June or July of this year.
I assure the House that our high commission to the Bahamas in Nassau has been closely involved with all the cases. Our high commissioner and his deputy have


maintained good working relationships and had good co-operation with the commissioner of police and senior members of his force.
We have been in regular correspondence with the families through our high commission in the Bahamas and the consular division in London. We have been on hand to assist the families with their visits to the islands and helped with the identification and repatriation of the deceased. We have discussed the details of the investigations with the families, keeping them updated, and have provided copies of all police reports that were available to us when requested. More recently, the high commission staff have helped with the visits of the officer from New Scotland Yard. In addition, the high commissioner and his deputy have pressed the local authorities to bring the investigation to a conclusion as rapidly as possible, and, as in the case of Carole Leach, have pressed for an inquest. I give an unconditional guarantee to the hon. Gentleman and to Mrs. Gamson that the pressure from our representatives will continue.
The role of consular officers in cases of violent deaths overseas is to help the next of kin at the time of great distress. They provide advice and sometimes practical help, such as advising on the cost of the practical and necessary but rather tragic details of local burial or cremation and transport of the remains and personal property back to the UK. They can also provide a list of local funeral directors and help transfer money from friends and relatives in the UK to help pay costs. Where there is evidence of suspicious circumstances, they have pressed for investigations by local authorities and for results. We have two UK-based staff. Both they and the work is fully covered.
The criminal investigation is a matter for the Royal Bahamian police force. Like most police forces, it has a heavy work load, with only 2,200 officers at its disposal to cover 29 inhabited islands. We have made offers of assistance to the Bahamian police force in the past, including for the investigation of the murder of Carole Leach. In a meeting with the deputy commissioner of police, the high commissioner made it clear that the assistance of the Dependent Territories Regional Criminal Intelligence Service would be made available for the investigation of the murder of Carole Leach should the Bahamian police wish. The deputy commissioner of police did not take up this offer.
The House will appreciate that we cannot participate in a police investigation in another country unless we are specifically invited to do so. We welcomed the decision to allow a member of New Scotland Yard to join forces with the Bahamian CID, in a purely advisory capacity, in the investigation into the murder of Joanne Clarke. I think that Mrs. Gamson already knows, but it is important to put it on record, that we also requested that our officers be allowed to work on the murder of Carole Leach and the unrelated case of Jonathon Porton. The authorities in the Bahamas agreed to that.
Detective Superintendent Brian Morris, the officer from New Scotland Yard, visited the site of Carole Leach's murder. He was also given access to the case files of Carole Leach and Jonathon Porton and discussed both cases with the Royal Bahamian police. He has since been involved in facilitating the Bahamian authorities' request for evidence from the UK and has supplied specialist assistance.
Again, I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the work of Detective Superintendent Morris. As he recognised, Detective Superintendent Morris has personally tried to keep in touch with Mrs. Gamson to keep her fully informed of not only his role, but the way in which the investigation was being conducted.
Detective Superintendent Morris paid a second visit to the island at the end of March. He and the high commissioner paid a call to the commissioner of police to discuss the case. I understand that, although critical of the coroner in the Carole Leach case, he felt that the investigations were being conducted reasonably well. He took the opportunity of his last meeting to reiterate what was written in the report and to advise on what he considered to be the best way forward. New Scotland Yard remains in contact with the Bahamian police and is ready to respond to any request for further help.
Clearly, the role that we can play is limited. I think that the hon. Gentleman and Mrs. Gamson understand those limitations. I am especially grateful for the moderate way in which she, as a bereaved mother, has handled her dealings with the Foreign Office and its staff. It is clear that we will continue to offer what facilities we can to take the matter forward. Where resources can practically be made available that will be of practical assistance, those will be forthcoming. We will continue to press for assurances not only that there will be continued action, but that there is a desire to reach a satisfactory conclusion, which means the arrest and prosecution of those suspected of the murder.
In my role both as a constituency Member of Parliament and as a Minister, I have had to deal with a number of cases of British families who have suffered such horrendous, tragic loss. I know that part of the necessary process of bereavement is knowledge. Yesterday, in an unrelated case, I met someone whose relation had been murdered. That person made the point that it was important to be able to understand what had happened to the close relative. Such people need to understand as much as possible what took place, to have some certainty about the manner of death and all the events surrounding that, so these are not trivial matters.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Twelve midnight.